A number of people, including myself, wrote to the New York Times journalist, Julian Barnes, to point out that the piece he and his colleague, Adam Goldman, published on 16th April 2019 about the CIA Director, Gina Haspel, contained a part which unwittingly showed that she had misled President Trump into expelling 60 Russian diplomats in March 2018. Here were the paragraphs of interest:

“During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the president that the “strong option” was to expel 60 diplomats.

To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the only victims of Russia’s attack.

Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.

Ms. Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option.

The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.”

I pointed out to the authors in an (unanswered) email that this was an extraordinary claim, because no children became sick due to poisoning by a toxic chemical, and nor did any ducks die. And so unless they were prepared to correct or retract their piece, there could only be two possibilities:

  1. Ms Haspel unwittingly showed false images to no less a person than the President of the United States, supplied to her by the British Government who knew them to be false, which persuaded him to embrace the “strong option”.
  2. Ms Haspel knowingly showed false images to no less a person than the President of the United States, which persuaded him to embrace the “strong option”.

It seems that the two journalists have not ignored mine and the many other emails they received about this issue, and they have today corrected their story. The paragraphs of interest now read as follows:

“During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the president that the “strong option” was to expel 60 diplomats.

To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials including Ms. Haspel tried to demonstrate the dangers of using a nerve agent like Novichok in a populated area. Ms. Haspel showed pictures from other nerve agent attacks that showed their effects on people.

The British government had told Trump administration officials about early intelligence reports that said children were sickened and ducks were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.

The information was based on early reporting, and Trump administration officials had requested more details about the children and ducks, a person familiar with the intelligence said, though Ms. Haspel did not present that information to the president. After this article was published, local health officials in Britain said that no children were harmed.

Ms. Haspel was not the first to use emotional appeals to the president. She and Mr. Pompeo showed Mr. Trump images of children sickened by chemical weapons attacks in Syria, in an earlier presentation. But Ms. Haspel’s strategy in the March briefing was to pair emotional appeals with her hard-nosed realism and it proved effective. At the end of the briefing, Mr. Trump embraced the strong option. [my emphasis]”

Below is Mr Barnes’s explanation on Twitter for the error and the correction:

“I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to figure out where I went wrong. Initially, I reported that in March 2018, Gina Haspel, then the future CIA director, briefed President Trump about the Skirpal nerve agent attack, showing pictures of sickened children and dead ducks. That was wrong. There are—so far as we know—no pictures of dead ducks or sickened kids. Haspel did show pictures to Trump, but they were about the effects of nerve agents in general, they were not specific to the attack in the UK.

British officials did brief the Trump administration about early reports of dead ducks & sick children. Officials sought more info, believing such intel would be persuasive to Trump, who was skeptical of the proposed expulsion of 60 Russians in response to the attack. But Haspel did not brief the president on that intelligence.

Local UK health officials deny that any animals or children were sickened, as British officials pointed out soon after our story published. (In response to good reporting by @haynesdeborah, @guardian and others.) (link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/18/no-children-ducks-harmed-novichok-attack-wiltshire-health-officials)

The intelligence about the ducks and children were based on an early intelligence report, according to people familiar with the matter. The intelligence was presented to the US in an effort to share all that was known, not to deceive the Trump administration. This correction was delayed because conducting the research to figure out what I got wrong, how I got it wrong and what was the correct information took time.

I regret the error and offer my apology. I strive to get information right the first time. That is what subscribers pay for. But when I get something wrong, I fix it.”

Here is my response on Twitter to Mr Barnes:

Dear Julian,

Thanks for taking the time to correct your report. However, it unfortunately raises just as many questions as the initial report.

Firstly, you say British officials briefed the Trump administration about early reports of dead ducks & sick children.

Really? Which early reports were these? There were none. The parents of the children who had tests to see if they had been contaminated were only contacted 2 weeks after the incident, and none of them was found to be ill. This is the first report on it, and it confirms the children were given the all clear. And there were never any dead ducks in Salisbury nor any reports of them.

Secondly, you say that “Officials sought more info, believing such intel would be persuasive to Trump, who was skeptical of the proposed expulsion of 60 Russians in response to the attack.” But the fact is that any further (truthful) info could not have persuaded Mr Trump, for the simple reason that no other people were harmed in Salisbury than the three people who were initially harmed. How, then, was he persuaded?

Thirdly, you presumably give the answer to the second point, when you say “Haspel did show pictures to Trump, but they were about the effects of nerve agents in general, they were not specific to the attack in the UK.” So in other words, Ms Haspel couldn’t show any pictures from Salisbury to persuade the sceptical Mr Trump, because there weren’t any to show. So she showed him pictures from other nerve agent attacks, which were presumably sufficiently bad to turn him from his scepticism, to expelling 60 diplomats. Even though nothing like that happened in Salisbury.

Thank you for clarifying that Ms Haspel did indeed wilfully mislead the President.”

Despite NYT’s correction, the question it poses is this: Which is worse:

  • The deputy director of the CIA showing a sceptical President some fake pictures of dead ducks and sick children to persuade him to take the strongest action?
  • Or the deputy director of the CIA, knowing full well that there weren’t any pictures of the effects of nerve agent on the population of Salisbury because only three people were ever affected, showing some pictures of actual nerve agent victims who were never anywhere near Salisbury to persuade him to take the strongest action?

The answer is they’re both as bad. In both scenarios, an utterly false picture of what happened in Salisbury was given to the sceptical President to twist his arm into taking action he didn’t want to take.

As they say, when in a hole, better stop digging.

984 thoughts on “The New York Times Tries to Get Itself Out of the Duckgate Hole Using a Spade”

  1. The following statement from PHE was quoted by Liane on this page on 10 June 2019 :
    “In order to be able to formulate its public health advice, PHE was granted access to information held by other government agencies in an appropriate secure environment. For security reasons, we were not able to take the information away from that secure environment.”
    It is now impossible to find this statement on Internet.
    Does anybody have a reference ? Thanks in advance.

  2. Just reading book “How To Rob A Train” Gordon Goody [Train Robber 1963]
    Very fine line between Criminal and a serving Police Officer.
    They will fit you up even when you ain’t done nothing,Just so they can climb
    ladder for promotion.
    Gordon admits himself that he no Angel prior robbery but was fitted up on
    many occasions via career climbing officers.
    Makes me wonder if DS Bailey was trying for better things without official
    permission from Superiors.
    Being the Hero?

  3. Police release CCTV of possible Suspect involved in South London
    Knife Attack last weekend.
    Still nothing from Maltings Salisbury Sunday 4th March 2018.
    What don’t TPTB want us seeing knowing?

      2. They don’t want us to see what really did happen and who did it – all caught on Market Walk CCTV cameras – so divert attention away to the door handle hoax.

  4. 01.07.2019
    Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on the meeting between President Putin and Prime Minister Theresa May, 28 June 2019
    Question: What was President Putin’s answer to Mrs May’s question on the Skripal case? He outlined his position in the «Financial Times» interview but what did he say directly to Mrs May? Was she satisfied?

    Answer: It’s hard to say whether she was. Mrs May had indeed raised the Skripals incident in a rather tough manner, while the Russian President gave a detailed explanation on everything worth explaining. We all know that the British side has so far provided no evidence to support its accusations on the case. Neither to us, nor to their European allies, nor to North American ones. Otherwise, the evidence would have already been somehow made public.

    We still have no information on where the Skripals are, whether they are still alive, whether anything really happen to them etc. So here we need to set the record straight. That is why this part of the conversation, indeed a tough one, was very frank. And it was also private, with only the interpreters present. Later on, when the leaders were joined by their delegations, we were pleased to see a constructive and quite peaceful approach from Mrs May, who spoke with Mr Putin on the necessity to look for mechanisms to drive our trade and economic relations out of the torpor.

    Rossiya TV, 30 June 2019
    https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6861

    01.07.2019
    Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the BBC’s publication on the Salisbury incident
    Question: How would you comment on the BBC’s publication of 28 June which contains new “information” on the supposed “coordinator” of the Salisbury poisoning?

    Answer: As previously, this publication is based on reports from the untrustworthy “investigative” group Bellingcat and information provided by anonymous sources to the journalist Mark Urban, which are impossible to verify. This, predictably, raises a number of questions.

    First of all, the so-called “investigators”, while describing the movements and phone records of the Russian citizen whom they named as “operational commander” of the Salisbury “attack”, have not made a single attempt to support their suggestions with something that would in the least look like original documents. The public is invited to simply trust their word. At the same time, the very fact that a certain person visited London in the beginning of March is presented as a conclusive evidence of his connection to the incident.

    Meanwhile, the publication doesn’t shed any new light on the Salisbury incident itself. It is manifestly intended to remind the public of the alleged “Russian involvement”, diverting attention from the obvious questions that the British authorities can’t answer.

    It is worth noting that the Metropolitan Police have refused to comment on this publication, as it relates to an “ongoing investigation” in which “a number of lines of inquiry” are being pursued. In this light, we invite readers to decide for themselves on the relevance of the fresh British demands to Russia to accept its responsibility and bring “the suspects” to justice.

    01 July 2019, 16:50
    https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6862

    1. Highlighted, without any further comment from me:

      “…whether anything really happen to them…”

    2. @paul I can help the Russian Embassy. During his talk at the Salisbury Book Festival Urban referenced Fort Monckton the SIS training facility in Hampshire. He said some of those present would be familiar with it.
      And as I said before, he said “And the latest development is” at this point he looked and nodded at someone in the audience, then proceeded “it has been ascertained Fedotov and Boshirov visited on the same dates in 2016 and 2017”.
      At the time I thought it was in the papers and I had missed it because I was travelling all morning to get there.
      If I had known it was someone from SIS sitting there nodding acquiescence I might have taken more notice.

      1. The book festival was after the Peskov and Boshirov interview? Peskov volunteered that he’d visited London in the past (more than once, but how many times wasn’t stated). Boshirov gave no indication that he’d previously been in London but left the impression that he hadn’t.

        Wonder why Bellingcrap — trying to sell crap from MI6 that not even the Met wants to touch (understandable considering all the Salisbury crap they did release that made them look like fools) — didn’t track Peskov?

  6. I support the theory that there was a connection between the Skripal affair and the alleged Russian interference in the American election.

    I watched last night’s Going Underground on RT:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/463089-foreign-policy-nato-russia/

    There is no mention of the Skripal affair but it seems that the deep state in the USA, Britain and Australia were very keen to stop Trump getting elected.

    I suspect that Trump is not approved by the Bilderberg Group because he is too independent-minded.

    In Britain, the same might apply to Boris Johnson so there will probably be moves behind the scenes to get Jeremy Hunt elected instead. I think Hunt would be more acceptable to the Bilderbergers.

    1. The Mantra of the psychos organising this madness is “Perception is Reality”

      The false premise, in their universe, is not an issue because if the majority do not see it as a false premise then it does not exist.

      In this dystopian universe an outcome is decided upon that satisfies the needs of the controllers, then it is only a matter of convincing the people that fund the controllers that perceived events justify the objectives.

      False Flags, Hoaxes, Lies and Fear are the corner stones of the methodology.

      The Internet and genuine human revulsion at the means deployed to achieve the objectives are the enemy of the controllers.

      That empire is now dying, we may well all die along with it.

    2. I agree with you – the Skripal affair was linked to the Trump campaign. Smear Trump as a Russian puppet and attempt to turn the whole world against Russia – neither worked. Trump got elected on his anti-war campaign and as George Papadopolous said, something which would affect the British and American military industrial complex and could make their jobs redundant. The second was to bring jobs back to the US, the companies that out-sourced work to China and elsewhere coined the phrase “race to the bottom” ie wages.

      I’d also recommend watching that episode to Going Underground:

      “On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to the Trump campaign’s foreign policy adviser, George Papadopolous, about UK interference in the 2016 election, how Britain kept tabs on him regularly, the British establishment’s focus on Russia and NATO throughout the campaign, and Boris Johnson’s links to the CIA.”

  7. “Some of the side effects of atropine and pralidoxime may be similar to the symptoms of poisoning. Your caregivers will watch you closely to determine whether your body is responding well to the medication, or if you are having any serious side effects.

    Common side effects may include:

    dry mouth, dry nose, trouble breathing or swallowing;
    dry eyes, blurred vision, increased sensitivity to light;
    nausea, vomiting, constipation, stomach pain, bloating;
    fast heartbeats, increased blood pressure;
    feeling excited or confused;
    headache, dizziness, drowsiness;
    muscle weakness;
    dry skin, rash; or
    abnormal liver function tests.”

    Say the FSB/GRU were tipped off by a MI6 mole at the highest levels – they could never admit what they were up to – trying to save the Skripals by giving them the antidote.
    And the British could never admit they’d been infiltrated by Sergei, they had then used his daughter as the unwitting assassin, but had been foiled by an even higher up “traitor” giving the plan away.

    1. Yes, Patrick Mahony, such scenarios are possible in cases where spies are involved. On the other hand, the Amesbury affair seems simpler: the illness of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley was caused (perhaps indirectly) by drug items found the same day by the police
      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44733873

      1. OK supposing it was a drug accident exploited by HMG and the goons at PD and OPCW lied to support Hoax

        How did the unique thick wrapped plastic package containing a fake Russian perfume with a spray nozzle appear on the scene?

        Or are all Charlie’s memories false and implanted by HMG psycos?

        1. What you are asking us to believe is that two completely unrelated events occurred at the same point in space and time and were merged by the British authorities to implicate Russia in a crime.

          1. Or is it Charlie was given something he believed to be a powerful “recreational” drug which he thought was a good idea to try out on his girlfriend and when he realised he had killed her he went for a burger.

            Plod discovers what he has done and decides to cover up his crime for a higher purpose.

          2. @Anonymous, You mention below that it ought to have been easy to find the agent all over Charlie’s house. The OPCW got nothing. We have seen the BBC video of the ambulance crew removing Charlie with no protective gear. Sam didn’t even get checked for 2 weeks! Everything points to there being no Novichok present on 30 June.

            Basu said that the police found the box in the bin on 10 July and then found the bottle on 11 July – how could the police have found the box but not the wrapper? It must have been in the same bin. If the wrapper was thick, as Charlie described it, SURELY the police would have been suspicious!! It makes no sense.

            Something happened to Charlie – I have no idea what. His brother was speaking about him being still 50/50 on 17 July… only 3 days later he left hospital! How was that possible? His brother’s description does not seem truthful when you look at Charlie in his interview only 7 days later.

            What I am trying to say is, I just don’t believe any of it. We have been fed a story that was far removed from the truth.

            How much of what Charlie has said is a real memory and how much of it is fake – I have no idea. The thick plastic is a very significant detail, why did Charlie not mention it in his interview? Why has it taken until now for the Guardian to publish the information, when it has been available on this blog for months?

            It really boils down to a choice. Which is more credible:
            1) Charlie really found (or it was planted on him) a thick plastic wrapped bottle of Novichok and took it home (the rest of the story as we know it); or
            2) There was no perfume bottle until after the event. Charlie’s account of what happened is a combination of what he was told to say and what he has created by himself to embellish the story.

            It has to be one or the other.

            1. Charlie first mentioned a wrapper in his 24 July interview. On 5 September, Basu’s statement still did not include the words: wrapper, cellophane or plastic.

              “Previously, during a search of Charlie’s home address in Muggleton Road on 10 July a small box labelled as Nina Ricci Premier Jour was recovered from a rubbish bag in the kitchen. On 11 July a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop.”

              How can Basu’s failure to mention the wrapper be explained?

              Until Charlie mentioned the wrapper, this bottle was going to be the remnant of 4 March bottle. Case solved! Now Basu knows he cannot say that. Instead, the narrative has ground to a halt – there must be 2 bottles… The story is already too crazy to add another bottle so the Met will just leave it where it is and the mystery will never be ‘solved’.

              1. The thought of being fitted-up by the Met for possession of a Class A drug and possible manslaughter would make anyone go along with anything.

    2. If the Skripals were reacting to the antidote, that would explain why nobody attending them nor the duck boys were exposed. Why Skripals didn’t ingest toxins eating garlic bread by hand.
      But if there was novichok in CMR, either stored by Sergei from PD, or inadvertently brought in by Yulia, that would explain how DCB was exposed.

  8. “Amesbury Novichok contaminated item search continues”, BBC, 6 July 2018.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44733873

    [QUOTE]
    Based on information from a friend and items found at the flat, Wiltshire Police initially thought the pair [= Sturgess and Rowley] had fallen ill after using a contaminated batch of heroin or crack cocaine.
    But after tests at the government’s military research facility at Porton Down, a major incident was declared and it was confirmed they had been exposed to Novichok.
    [/QUOTE]

    It would be interesting to know which items had been found by the police.

    1. I think the tests were supposed to be on samples from Dawn and Charlie.

      In the same article we read:
      “BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said no objects have been collected for testing yet.”

      and:
      ” Scientists and chemical weapons experts at Porton Down in Wiltshire are bracing themselves for an influx of countless objects all needing forensic analysis.”

      So it seems nothing had been tested by 6 July apart from Dawn and Charlie! A week had passed and NOTHING had been tested! Does that sound likely if they really believed Novichok was in the house?

  9. When Britain finally gets its new Prime Minister, will there be another Novihoax event to reinforce our bad relations with Russia?

  10. “Dreyfus enlists an army of criminals to his cause and kidnaps nuclear physicist Professor Hugo Fassbender and the Professor’s daughter Margo, forcing the professor to build a “doomsday weapon” in return for his daughter’s freedom”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Panther_Strikes_Again

    Was this the inspiration for the Skripal affair, with Sergei as Prof. Fassbender and Yulia as Margo?

  11. I would like to share my thoughts as to why Putin proposed the U.K. to “forget the Skripals” and “move on.” One explanation may be that Putin underestimates the significance of the Salisbury poisoning story, but I think that there is a fundamental reason for Russia’s lack of inclination to seek the truth in the Skripals affair. I suspect it is Russia’s fear of getting things worse. This is, Russia may believe that it is safer to swallow the “bitter pill” of the Novichok accusations than to pursue the truth and justice in this poisoning case. Despite the Kremlin’s proud rhetoric, Russia is in a vulnerable position in its relationship with the West. Russia and many Russian oligarchs are already under western, primarily American, sanctions and they live in fear that sanctions may be expanded in a devastating way.

    A frightening example is that of Oleg Deripaska, who used to be the majority owner of the world’s second-largest aluminum producer Rusal. In brief, before the U.S. imposed sanctions on Deripaska for his alleged role in Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. elections of 2016, he had owned 70% of Rusal’s holding company En+; as a result of the sanctions, Deripaska’s stake in En+ was reduced to 44.95% and Rusal, with its core production facilities based in Russia, has got under control of western directors. Lord Gregory Barker has become the independent chair of the En+ board. Lord Barker: “The direct removal of a Russian oligarch from control of his own business is simply unprecedented. This plan is a triumph for muscular corporate governance.”

    Deripaska complained that “the sanctions rendered him a pariah, shunned by business partners and banks, and had erased four-fifths of his net worth.” See excerpts from his lawsuit filed against the U.S. in March 2019:
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/15/tycoon-deripaska-sues-us-over-sanctions-a64831

    Deripaska filed his lawsuit as he, from his point of view, had already nothing to lose. But other oligarchs and the Russian government may be very wary of a further deterioration of Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and the U.K.

    Some links to the info on the sanctions against Deripaska:

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/us-sanctions-global-impact
    May 18, 2018
    US Sanctions’ Global Impact – A Case Study of RUSAL’s Supply Chain

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/us-sanctions-lifted-coles
    February 6, 2019
    A Breakdown of the Sanctions Deal between the United States and Oleg Deripaska

    1. Milda,

      It sounds reasonable. The USA is doing everything it can to destroy the economies of countries it doesn’t like, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

      1. What we need is for countries to stop using US dollars to pay for oil. We could use gold if Gordon Brown hadn’t sold off our gold reserves. Maybe we could use silver or platinum instead.

  12. What if…Yulia was sent to kill Sergei! Deliberately or inadvertently. She was given the Nina Ricci sprays in Moscow.
    His GRU handlers Fedotov and Boshirov got wind of it. They had to get there in a hurry and brought the new man Dr Petrov with antidotes.
    Yulia had hold baggage. She could have brought sealed bottles. She might have used one but not enough to kill?
    The other she gave to Mo as a present but she held on to it and dumped it?
    Crazy enough to be true

      1. @gavin Highly amusing. Except I am a real person who actually went to Urban’s talk in Salisbury.
        It explains where novichok came from. It explains last minute scramble by GRU to get tickets. It explains why the GRU were unconcerned about covering their tracks. It explains why a doctor was sent from Russia. It explains otherwise baffling reappearance of Russian bottle after 3 months, 3 months after Russians left.
        It fits with otherwise inexplicable yearly visits by Fedotov and Boshirov, they were Sergei’s handlers.
        As far as whoever gave Yulia the bottles it was the perfect crime.
        Also Yulia hasn’t been seen since Dawn’s death i.e. after the bottle was shown. She would know she carried the novichok, and who gave it to her.
        It is only a wild theory – sparked by; why was there a doctor this time, but not 2016/17.

    2. Dear AnonPM (Theresa May?)
      Certainly the March 4th events seemed to require Yulia being in England and visiting her father.

      An elaborate scheme would be the UK staging a hit on both Skripals and “rescuing” them from the Russian agents. This would give us the status we now have.
      Conventional logic would seem to suggest that if the Russians wanted Yulia dead, then a Moscow car accident would achieve that.
      If the Russians wanted Sergei to return to Moscow, then Yulia’s death in Russia would achieve that too.
      All of the posts about perfume and luggage/duty free, why not aftershave, why a fake bottle etc seem too complex.
      An official Russian mission would simply put the Novichok in a container that could be used in a diplomatic bag sent to the embassy in London.
      There was no Novichok

      1. @duncan it is Patrick M. I was having a problem posting so changed phones
        and names.
        It is just a scenario.
        I think people have accepted the logic of “hitmen” not taking 3 years to do the job.
        So they are something else.
        Then logically – why change the routine and bring a medical doctor?
        We are all trying to explain how the second bottle appeared. Everyone rejected it being from PD. Fine. So where did it come from.
        As Milda said it could be an Operation Mincemeat II with an already dead or dying Dawn used for propaganda.
        But as I said before, a perfectly believable explanation for that was P&B chucked it into the river.
        There was no reason for whoever storyboarded it to bring in the implausibility of the unemptied bin.

        IMO Putin cannot tell the truth as Skripal was an active Russian spy and they still want to protect his network.

        The British can’t tell the truth IF they gave Yulia the Nina Ricci bottles to kill her and her father after rumbling him.

        We don’t know exactly where S&Y where that morning. Maybe P&B dead-dropped an antidote on Saturday and S&Y took it enabling them to survive.

        It would explain the inordinately long questioning of Ross and Mo – if MI6 knew there was a back-up bottle they couldn’t find – but the only people the Skripals met was the Cassidys.

        1. Maybe there was only the one bottle and the antidote caused the Skripals illness.
          The implausible medical and police reaction was intended to be in vain. But unbeknownst to British Intelligence they hadn’t been exposed to the toxin.

          1. “Maybe there was only the one bottle and … ”

            … it was very robustly wrapped and weather-proofed to protect its toxic contents from seeping into the world at large. Maybe it was put into a dead-letterbox from which it was not collected at the time intended and later found itself in the hands of those not involved with the Skripal saga, except by geographical proximity (and dark ops). That’s not to say that some kind of bottle+contents switch didn’t happen while Dawn and Charlie were in hospital.

            It’s clear that Sunday 4 March did not go as planned, at least for some, which resulted in a story being concocted to account for some of what happened. If that story was developed using what was meant to have happened as its basis, then the novichok that wasn’t there magically appears in the story.

            OK so I’m not convinced by this argument but that’s no reason not to keep tossing around ideas about what did happen, what didn’t happen and what was supposed to happen.

            1. Maybe there were two dead letterboxes. One was the bin near the bench and the other was the bin behind the charity shop.

  13. Hello Blogmirers,

    During the course of the day, I had been exchanging posts with Paul.
    These have been Amesbury related, and although this is hardly an epiphany it is well worth considering the fundamentals in the whole saga.
    In my opinion:
    (more than glad to defend my position though)

    1) There was no Novichok on the door handle. This means discussions about binary agents are meaningless. If anyone with a chemical knowledge looked at how complex the final stages of the Iranian Novichok synthesis was, trying to attempt this in a hotel room would be reckless and hazardous. Even before hookers and marijuana were factored in.

    2) The two Russian ex GRU agents were in Salisbury for a reason.

    3) The OPCW final report (which was not public) named the nerve agent and gave the chemical formula. (Sidebar – Would Russia not receive that report?)

    4) If the OPCW were given samples, or shown analysis from the Skripals, Charlie, Dawn, door handle, perfume bottle etc that DID contain evidence of Novichok, then that could ONLY be doctored spiked samples from HMG, more than likely Porton Down.

    5) If the City Hotel was swabbed free by the decontamination team, this ridiculous and impossible scenario again could only be contrived by HMG black ops.

    6) The recent Newsnight – Bellingcat revelation, where Commander Sergeyev is “discovered” is more nonsense. Again, no doubt he was in London.

    The NY Times was summarising this in their online edition today.
    I fired off my usual missive, which is pasted below, copying her colleague Julian Barnes, of the non-sick sick children fame.

    “Hello Ellen,

    I read your piece in the online version of the NTY.
    This is of course the Salisbury Skripal sage which for journalists seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.

    Last month I pointed out to your colleague Julian Barnes that he had “misreported” an account between Trump and Gina Haspel regarding sick children and dead ducks on the day of the Salisbury attack.
    ( I do not believe that Julian did misreport, I think his sources were correct, but it was more reasonable for the reporter to make the mistake rather than continue to defend the story that the head of the CIA was lying to POTUS, which I believe is a US Federal crime.)

    Anyway, the baton for the fantasy continues and has been passed to you.

    If Bellingcat have received phone records from UK telecommunications and published them, then that is a clear breech of UK GDPR law. (See below)

    Claiming that one party does not exist is of course preposterous, and there was of course another party or parties receiving the calls, so their rights to data protection were also infringed.
    The privacy laws are the domain of the UK, not the Russian service provider.

    However, in all of this there should be more than enough incongruous acts to interest even the laziest of journalists.

    1) Why did Sergeyev make prior trips to the UK in 2016 and 2017?

    2) I have no doubt that the Sergeyev and the 2 other GRU officers were on some type of mission, but could they have left footprints that were any larger?
    Frantic searches on travel sites to make sure that all of them were on direct flights to and from Moscow.

    3) If Sergeyev was the mission commander, then what was the purpose of the mission? To kill Sergei Skripal. Three Russian agents, 3 years of planning, and the deployment of the world’s most deadly nerve agent which could not kill a 66-year-old diabetic?

    There is of course a “big story” here, but it seems that the media are content with reporting what other media sources report.

    For example, Lionel Barber of the FT in his interview with Putin stated that a “man died”.
    No man died, but we would not want the facts to get in the way. Mr Barber told me that he misspoke during his interview with Putin.

    Haspel did show Trump pictures of sick children and dead ducks.
    Julian Barnes reported that correctly, because it did happen.
    Now it has been “corrected” by Julian, so it did not happen.

    Why does the media not want this story to be reported?

    Regards,

    Duncan”

    UK and EU Data Protection

    73General principles for transfers of personal data
    (1)A controller may not transfer personal data to a third country or to an international organisation unless—
    (a)the three conditions set out in subsections (2) to (4) are met, and
    (b)in a case where the personal data was originally transmitted or otherwise made available to the controller or another competent authority by a member State other than the United Kingdom, that member State, or any person based in that member State which is a competent authority for the purposes of the Law Enforcement Directive, has authorised the transfer in accordance with the law of the member State.

    1. Duncan

      I understood Shell delivered Binary NA’s which I believe the US still have stocks of, have the two precursors stowed in separate compartments within the munition and they only become mixed at / after launch (lots of g and spin)

      It appears therefore, to me, that the final stage can be a complicated lab based affair or a brute force battle field method.

      2. Thanks Anonymous. That was Sarin, and would make several isomers (different arrangements) of the molecule, but enough toxic content to be an effective weapon. If you read the Wiki summary there is still a lot of chemistry still going on, and therefore danger.
        A shell fired from a canon is a lot more operator friendly than mixing solutions while you are waiting the hooker’s arrival.

        Also, PD and other keep telling us the Novichok was pure. Mixing 2 things to get a 3rd thing usually does not generate pure material.

        1. Well the opcw have said the Salisbury stuff was pure and they have said it wasn’t.

          The Russian Foliant Program built on the British VX molecule, Porton Down first Synthesised It, the Brits invented it – doesn’t that make you proud?

          Wiki often tells lies.

          Porton Down according to Boris Johnson had a Pre-existing sample of what was discovered in Salisbury and Amesbury.

          Johnson often lies.

          Porton Down also had animal test results of the chemical used in both locations in Wiltshire according to Public Health England (PHE).

          PHE (Porton Down) often lie. Remember the one about very low risk to the public – tell that to Dawn’s family and Charlie.

          The upshot is we are informed of the “facts” by liars, once you understand that the reality becomes apparent.

    2. Duncan, your points 1, 4 & 5 taken together are saying that Salisbury and Amesbury must have been hoaxes. If those elements of the narrative are not true, there is no narrative…

      1. I disagree Paul, there is an Official Narrative that can also be referred to as a lie.

        1. Many 1000’s of times more “Novichok” was present on the inside of Charlie’s flat (on the kitchen worktop, in the bin, in the building’s drainage system than there was present on the outside of Sergei’s house.

          We are told that Bailey and countless others took the “Novichok” from Sergei’s door knob and spread it through his home.

          But Charlie’s “Novichok” started off in his home. They could have at least took his roof off.

        2. That is what I meant! If you take Duncan’s points out of the official narrative what was the couple doing that was found by Freya on the bench? If there was no Novihoax the rest of the official narrative collapses.

      2. Paul, in the TV detective series, Columbo, he would focus on a small detail and use that small and seemingly trivial event to solve his case.

        Witness 1 ” The suspect killed the victim and rushed out of the library, slamming the door,”

        Witness 2 ” I was in the room next the library, and heard a scream.”

        Columbo to witness 2 “Did you hear the door slam?”

        Witness 2 “No”

        One of the witness statements is false. Maybe Witness 2 was not next the library.
        Why did Witness 1 report the door slamming, and not the scream?

        HMG claimed Novichok on the door handle. That was false. The whole HMG narrative is false.
        However, the roof required dismantling, the City Hotel was swabbed clear.

        1. It probably comes as no surprise to you that I agree. Which means there is nothing to link Salisbury with Amesbury in attempting to resolve what happened to the Skripals. Salisbury and Amesbury are 2 separate events and there never will be any connection.

          So back to 4 March. If there was no Novichok, what happened? Nobody was poisoned by a door handle and nobody went to SDH with nerve agent poisoning.

          Sergei and Yulia are still ‘missing’ so it is likely that that was the original objective of the day’s shenanigans. There are, however, several components that we know do not fit together, which tends to indicate that what we know of the events of 4 March are an amalgam of different plans.

          The question is: which bits belong to which plan?

  14. Something to add to my post of June 30, 4:15 pm.

    On June 23 Inquirer posted here the link to this Twitter account:
    https://twitter.com/HisBlakeness/status/1038775104270999554

    There, there is the link to the following account:
    https://twitter.com/elenaevdokimov7/status/1038664315501342721

    Elena Evdokimova says about the Nina Ricci 5.5 ml counterfeit Premier Jour perfume:
    “Found the box on Moscow internet shopping site
    mistersmell.ru….
    the ONLY ONE site (!) that sells this particular Nina Ricci fake perfume”

    In some of her other Twitter posts, Elena says that she found similar 7 ml perfume offers on Ukrainian websites, but 5.5 ml only on the above Russian site.

    So, it looks like the same story as the Salisbury Novichok tale: Novichok is an exclusively Russian product and its delivery device, i.e. the perfume bottle, is of exclusively Russian origin.

    1. Elena is very good but she was wrong to say MisterSmell was the only site. I found it on other sites in Russia last year and tried to buy it – nobody replied.

      1. The perfume bottle was not an assassin’s weapon.

        It was a real counterfeit bottle not a copy of a counterfeit perfume.

        Nina Ricci Paris do make that perfume but they do not sell it in that bottle and the markings on the bottle were not markings that would be put on the genuine product. The bottle that the police first released the pictures of (Sept 5th 2018) was a bad counterfeit of Nina Ricci that, as far as I know, was only available from a Russian wholesaler, the contents were in the wrong packaging, wrong bottle and wrong markings compared with a genuine Nina Ricci Sample Perfume Spray.

        The next pictures that the police released of the bottle wasn’t a genuine or counterfeit anything it was an unmarked white plastic (possibly 3D Printed) copy of the Russian Counterfeit Nina Ricci Perfume. It was produced to show the public something completely different to what was said to be found in Charlie’s flat – I am not sure why they did that other than to rewrite history and hope we forgot about the Sept 5th photos.

        An assassin would not use a counterfeit item for the worlds deadliest Nerve Agent to store, transport and dispense the chemical; for the simple reason it would be prone to leaking.

        An assassin would not use an atomizing device for Nerve Agent dispensing, the aerosol would cover the head body and clothing of the person using it and outside it would go where the wind took it.

        The Nozzle was a redundant feature, it was too short to offer protection to the person using it, the length needed to offer a small amount of protection would mean it would by impractical because it would need to be many feet long. Once used the inside of the nozzle is coated with the chemical, it is going to drip out immediately after use.

        The idea that it was a made to look like a common consumer item so it could be transported without suspicion is also nonsense because it was actually designed to be easily recognised as a bad forgery. The question a customs person might ask to a man carrying the item is “what is the purpose of your visit?” (Already stated on the immigration form) and the next question is “do you have a girlfriend in England?” All needless risks when a safe receptacle could have been couriered into the country in a Diplomatic Bag. And why bring a premixed binary nerve agent and not two relatively safe precursor chemicals in Travel Shampoo & Conditioner bottles?

        An assassin would not dream of using a Nerve Agent so indiscriminately when other methods of killing are more efficient and risk free but if the GU are particularly stupid and the their agents don’t care if they get back home or not, they might have dabbed or brushed a colloidal suspension of nerve agent onto a handle and immediately chucked the applicator away, even a stupid assassin would know carrying it around after the seal was broken was not a bright idea.

        The bottle said to be found in Charlie’s flat had only one useful purpose and that was to entice an unsuspecting person to have a go with it. That’s not what assassins do, they target their victims and then kill them. The official narrative says its was not certain Charlie would find it, a child could have done so.

        So the outrage should have been that a Russian Nerve Agent was planted in Salisbury to indiscriminately kill whoever found it – It was not left behind by the Salisbury Assassins because it is not an Assassins Weapon.

        So the question is who had access to that particular “Russian” chemical and had the means to package it into a Real Russian Counterfeit Branded Perfume Spray and have it deployed during the Russian World Cup Finals?

        1. The real Russian counterfeit bottle could have been ordered online by anyone in the UK but would have required a customs declaration on the package. Being purchased outside the EU, the minimum order value exceeds the limit for tax free importation so UK duty and VAT would have been payable on the item when it arrived in the UK. It would also be subject to inspection and if found to be counterfeit would have been confiscated – all sorts of things could go wrong.

          Much safer would be for HMG to buy it in Russia (for example using the British Embassy) and send it to the UK in a diplomatic bag so it would arrive in the UK ‘no questions asked’. Once the bottle was in the UK the only source of the chemical would have been PD.

  15. What really sickens me is that the UKG narrative from the beginning is being propagated worldwide. This equslly applies to Bellingbrat’s lies which are all over the Romanian MSM. All this thanks to the activities of the II. Of course, the outfit run by Higgins and his cronies is being used as a cover for MI6’s propaganda, and was no doubt created by them. Americanisms, such as ‘sneakers’ and ‘downtown’, etc. indicate transatlantic involvement and give the game away. Dan Kaszeta take note.

    1. “Dan Kaszeta take note.”

      Or better still, Dan, ignore – tell tale signs are … telling.

  16. Note to FSB/GRU. If you come to the UK to assassinate someone –
    Go to a shop called CEX and buy a secondhand dual SIM unlocked phone.
    Go to Tesco and get a PAYG SIM. Go to corner shop buy PAYG Lycamobile SIM.
    Keep swapping between them.
    That way Bellingcat won’t be able to report when and where you let off wind.
    Or do what Sergei and Yulia did and turn off your phone.
    Russian tradecraft ain’t what it used to be

    1. FSB and GU have far more secure methods of communication. Bellingbrat’s outlandish claims re mobile-phone tracking are 100% fake. Fancy graphics and quasi-techical language are intended to convince the unquestioning masses. The more detail the more convincing. An old MI6 ploy.

  17. Theresa May spends £Billions£ on vanity projects…Sky News.
    Salisbury Amesbury just two of them I think.

  18. How was Charlie described by his brother Matthew in mid-July last year?

    Semi-woken
    absolutely not the brother I know
    his mental health has gone down
    recollection of what took place was still “vague”
    It’s difficult talking to him as he still can’t really remember anything
    traumatised, lethargic and suffering from memory loss
    he’s very lethargic and he does not seem himself
    (For the links and quotes, see my post of 11:36 am)

    So it was not hard to make Charlie, still on medication, believe the tale he was intensely inculcated with, while he was in hospital and later in the safe house (this is, in isolation). It seems that Charlie’s handlers were modifying the tale over the process of inculcation. For instance, Matthew told the media that, according to Charlie, he found the bottle “nine days before they got ill.” It is implausible that Charlie, in his lethargic state, suffering from memory loss, calculated that the finding took place exactly nine days before his and Dawn’s getting ill. Later the timing of the finding was omitted and then fixed as 27th June, closer to the day of their falling ill. Most strikingly, according to the initial tale, the perfume bottle “splintered or broke” in Charlie’s hands. No need to comment this.

    Yet, it is very likely that Charlie indeed found some toiletry bottle some time in June. Even when he was being instructed that he had found a “perfume bottle”, he was saying at times that maybe it was an aftershave bottle or, generally, some cosmetic bottle. Such a finding would not be surprising, given Charlie’s habit of bin diving. The toiletry bottle which he really found seems to have been sealed in the cellophane, and that is perhaps the only genuine thing (or one of a few) in Charlie’s recount. Obviously, Charlie’s handlers would not have prompted him such a detail, as it is against their interests.

    It is worth noting that Charlie, being in the safe house, told Matthew that his phone seemed to have been tapped. It is likely that Charlie’s handlers wanted to know the content of his conversations with Matthew.

    Taking into account that the Novichok spraying tale cannot be true by definition (see my posts below), I would suggest that the real cause of Dawn’s and Charlie’s collapse was the anaphylactic shock. If I remember correctly, Anonymous-1 came up with this idea long ago.

    See Wikipedia for Anaphylaxis.

    One of the many potential causes of anaphylaxis are opioids.

    My theoretical reconstruction of the events of 30 June 2018 is as follows. (Disclaimer for Anonymous aka Peter Beswick: my hypothesis does not suggest that Dawn was a recreational drug addict.) In the morning Charlie and Dawn walked towards the Baptist Church to find out when the Hog Roast event was scheduled to start (the beginning was at 2pm). Dawn felt unwell and they returned home – see my post
    https://www.theblogmire.com/the-new-york-times-tries-to-get-itself-out-of-duckgate-using-a-spade/#comment-29700

    Dawn asked Charlie whether he had any headache tablets – see the official story told to ITV
    https://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-24/charlie-rowley-novichok-amesbury/

    Dawn went to the bathroom to look for headache tablets there. Unfortunately, very recently Charlie purchased a batch of drugs; he did not yet take them. The drugs (opioids) were disguised as a bottle of medication, for instance, paracetamol. Dawn took a tablet or two. As opioids may cause anaphylaxis, even a pure opioid drug may trigger it. Charlie’s newly purchased batch was likely contaminated. Dawn was struck with the anaphylactic shock. Her hands and face were itching, she scratched them, which caused the damage to her face and hands. Among the symptoms of anaphylaxis are respiratory symptoms. As we know, when the paramedics were taking Dawn on the stretcher to the ambulance car, she was helped with a breathing device. And see The Sun’s piece of 23 July, 22:30: “An inquest heard how Dawn never woke up after being contaminated by the nerve agent. The hearing, which lasted 15 minutes, heard how she had fallen ill on the morning of June 30 with “respiratory distress” at her partner’s home.”

    After Dawn was taken to hospital, Charlie and Sam Hobson visited the Boots chemist and the Hog Roast event. According to Sam, when they returned home, Charlie fell ill. Sam’s recount can be understood differently. I would suggest that at first Charlie felt urge to take a tablet from his new batch of drugs. He went to the bathroom, took a tablet, and as it was a bad batch, he was struck with anaphylaxis too. Anaphylaxis can affect the central nervous system and cause confusion (see Wikipedia), thus Sam was perplexed with Charlie’s bizarre behavior. According to one of Sam’s recounts, Charlie told him that he was poisoned. Perhaps Charlie had a feeling of nausea, which is also one of the possible symptoms of anaphylaxis.

    Meanwhile, the handlers of the Salisbury poisoning case were watching whether some patients would be admitted to Salisbury District Hospital who could be announced the new victims of the Novichok poisoning. When Dawn and Charlie were admitted to SDH, the Salisbury handlers took their chance. I think that SDH doctors might have been not surprised too much with the Porton Down’s Novichok diagnosis, as they perhaps thought that the anaphylactic shock was one of the Novichok’s effects on Charlie and Dawn.

    2. @milda Operation Mincemeat 2018.
      The only thing is why not use a more likeable “victim”. The security services have the entire state apparatus behind them. Plenty of pretty, young drug addicts from “good” families.
      If the object was to dramatise the situation further, why inculcate the “bottle in the bin” story, as this raises the question – where did it come from, as bins are emptied at least fortnightly
      Given P&B crisscrossed the river, why not say they chucked it into the water? Inculcate into Charlie that he found it on the riverbank exposed from river levels dropping in summer.
      I’m not dismissing your ideas – like I say, Glyndwr Michael played the same role in 1943.

      2. Patrick Mahony said : “The only thing is why not use a more likeable “victim”. The security services have the entire state apparatus behind them. Plenty of pretty, young drug addicts from “good” families.”
        This was not necessarily scripted months in advance. Perhaps it is when people (Porton Down ?) noticed some wear and tear in the minds of the public and police that they have begun to want the case to be relaunched.

        [QUOTE]
        The emergence of additional victims “will give it a renewed sense of urgency,” particularly if one of them succumbs, said James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, a research group in London.

        “The spines were weakening,” Mr. Nixey said of the British authorities, “and if there are new crimes or misdemeanors on the part of the Russian state, then it means that those spines can be restiffened.” If either victim dies, he added, “it becomes a murder investigation, and it’s involving a British national rather than a Russian national.”
        [/QUOTE]

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/europe/uk-novichok-poison.html

        Patrick Manohey said : “If the object was to dramatise the situation further, why inculcate the “bottle in the bin” story, as this raises the question – where did it come from, as bins are emptied at least fortnightly”

        Police was under pressure from the government via Porton Down. They did their best.

        1. “If either victim dies…” – Dawn had stopped breathing for at least 30 minutes before she was taken from Charlie’s flat to SDH. She was already dead. She was kept ‘alive’ by artificial means for another week. That meant there was little to lose and a lot to gain by introducing a nerve agent into her body, before the machines were switched off.

          The OPCW took tissue samples from her postmortem – I think it is highly likely that those samples did indeed contain a ‘nerve agent or related compound’. The question is: what else was in her body?

          1. Paul, how do we know that the OPCW took tissue samples from Dawn at the post mortem?
            That in itself would be a breach of the UK Human Tissue Act. I could accept that the pathologist would remove tissue and body fluids for toxicological testing, and if the hospital found it necessary then samples could be split for external and possibly more sophisticated analysis.
            Why do you think it is highly likely that a nerve agent was found, and/or other drugs?
            The official word on this will come from the very delayed coroner report, now scheduled for October 2019.
            There is a reason for this delay.
            If Novichok A-234 or similar had been found, I don’t think there would have been a reason for the delay.

            1. 5. The team attended and observed the post-mortem (autopsy) of Ms Dawn Sturgess.
              The team was able to collect a number of biomedical samples (mainly tissue samples)
              for transport to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated
              Laboratories. Consent for this procedure was obtained from the next-of-kin of
              Ms Sturgess, and the activity was carried out in compliance with the United Kingdom
              Human Tissue Act
              http://beta.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018/09/s-1671-2018%28e%29.pdf

              You ask why I think it is highly likely a nerve agent was found in Dawn’s body – if Dawn was already dead before she arrived at SDH, there was nothing to lose by adding ‘something’ to one of the drips etc. to make sure that Novihoax really was found in her body.

              2. Thank you Paul.

                In the report, the paragraphs are contradictory.

                If statements 4 and 5 are true, then 6 was not needed.

                4. The team was able to collect blood samples from Mr Charles Rowley for transport to
                the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated Laboratories.
                Mr Rowley was able to give informed consent himself.
                5. The team attended and observed the post-mortem (autopsy) of Ms Dawn Sturgess.
                The team was able to collect a number of biomedical samples (mainly tissue samples)
                for transport to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated
                Laboratories. Consent for this procedure was obtained from the next-of-kin of
                Ms Sturgess, and the activity was carried out in compliance with the United Kingdom
                Human Tissue Act.
                6. The team requested and received splits of biomedical samples collected by the British
                authorities for delivery to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW
                Designated Laboratories. This was done for the purposes of comparison and in order
                to verify the analysis conducted by the United Kingdom.

                1. Well it is certainly a ‘belt and braces’ approach but the issue that bugs me is why the OPCW did not collect any environmental samples on their 15-18 July visit and weeks later made a second visit (13 August) where they only obtained a sample from the bottle – nothing else. They didn’t even visit Muggleton Road – the name does not appear anywhere in the report. How do we know that is where Dawn and Charlie were exposed?

                  Anonymous also notes (above) para 12. Now the Salisbury environmental samples had been exposed to the atmosphere, so impurities would obviously be present but the Amesbury sample had not suffered in the same way. The OPCW does say: ” Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of Mr Rowley” but that is actually clear isn’t it? It was found in Charlie’s kitchen and was then taken as evidence. Also it is a bit rich that the OPCW complains about ‘unknown storage conditions’ when it could have obtained the sample 4 weeks earlier…

                  Surely the OPCW ought to have been able to obtain an almost perfect analysis of any impurities found in the bottle and would have been able to say something about where it was made, even if they couldn’t confirm that it was the same batch as Salisbury.

                  1. Paul,

                    I don’t thinks so. I assume you are referring to the contents,(that is the liquid inside) rather than the constituents of the glass? Before I give a longer answer I will await your reply.

                    Another paragraph in the OPCW report is of minor interest.

                    9. During the second deployment, the team collected a sample of the contents of a small
                    bottle that the police seized as a suspect item from the house of Charles Rowley in
                    Amesbury.

                    Charlie could not remember where he left it, and if he was later told that it was on his kitchen worktop, he was probably in no condition to disagree.
                    So the OPCW were simply told, Charlie and Dawn got sick, we found this in Charlie’s house = Novichok induced illness, and PD would have the spikes to prove it.

                    1. Thanks Duncan, I do mean the contents of the bottle. If we believe what we are told, it was sealed when Charlie found it. It was used once and then sat on the kitchen counter. Unless the bottle as opened and the contents exposed to the environment, should the contents not be in the same condition as when they were made? (No need for a long answer, if I am wrong, I am wrong! The issue might be that the OPCW did not have samples against which to compare the impurity profile.)

                      Re environmental samples: if Dawn sprayed it on herself, would not the atomised spray have landed on numerous surfaces – not just on her wrists? There should be samples all over the room in which it was used. Compare with Douma – the OPCW did more than just visit victims in hospital. The OPCW did not even visit Muggleton Road to look for samples and they have no ‘chain of control’ linking the sample either to the location or to Dawn and Charlie.

        2. I think Patrick has some good solid points. Regarding a rouge employee
          at Porton Down..Yeah chuck it in a bin!! Try disposing a suspect item
          within a Government Facility if your on a mission after removing item
          and taken time effort smuggling item out. Item Red Hot…Discard It!

          I not saying this is what happened. Train robber dumped cash in a
          telephone box and never got collard [wheels within wheels]
          Bizarre things happen.

          Porton Down Employee not outside realms of possibility and became
          Very Hot.
          Give Patrick a break,He being Systematic unlike UK Security Services.

          1. These images might give you an idea of how seriously the police treated the risk posed by the bins.

            1) Here is an image of a policeman guarding the grey Veolia bins before they were collected:
            https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NINTCHDBPICT000424321135-e1533210895444.jpg

            2) Here is an image of the workers sent to remove the bins half-way through the job. Is that Marigolds they are wearing for protection?
            https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NINTCHDBPICT000424320302-e1533210944395.jpg

            3) Bins safely loaded. No sign of any cordon; nothing to stop members of the public wandering in and around the area; and no sign of anyone waiting to ‘decontaminate’ the area:
            https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NINTCHDBPICT000424320279-e1533210846785.jpg

            I don’t think they believed Novichok had ever been anywhere near those bins…

            2. Paul, the first picture of the bins is interesting. Can one of the Blogmirer’s with better photoshop skills than me, blow up the picture so we can see the bid ID?

              I take it these bins are emptied, and not replaced. So that the same bin is used for multiple fill/empty cycles.
              These days the bins are usually RFID tagged so the recycler would have a record for the period March 4th to June 2018.

            3. Presumably the bins had been emptied between Charlie finding the “perfume” and the bins being taken away, possibly more than once.

              So what is the copper collecting for? (Charity Collecting Tub on the police car bonnet top photo)

              Lost Causes?

              1. The thick plastic wrapping and the throat nozzle tell us it was part of the plan.

                In does not mean the contents were hazardous.

                If the poisoning of Dawn and Charlie was to be done by other means the “perfume” would be a useful prop to bring onto centre stage as a distraction for the actual poisoning means.

                But it does mean that if the bottle had been in Charlie’s possession then it was not an accidental OD or bad batch of drugs that was responsible and the spooks took advantage of it.

                The bottle would not be planted on Charlie of left somewhere for him to find if the plan was to wait until he came by some dodgy drugs or OD’d.

                The idea that Charlie could be persuaded to believe he found the bottle somewhere, it had a thick plastic wrapper (that wasn’t in the script) and it had a throat spray nozzle as part of the kit, if it was all make believe, is a none starter.

                The package, if Charlies memory is correct and he carried it around for a few days, puts a variable into the plot that was was not controlled; where would the package be opened and used? Dawn’s apartment? Charlie’s home? A pub?

                The package was too battered for Charlie to get any money for it so the likelihood was he or Dawn would open it and try it first rather than just to chuck it out.

              2. I know Patrick but what about the second bottle? If anyone wants to believe that the perfume bottle is real, then perhaps BOTH bottles were dumped at the same time and Charlie only found the sealed one. The other bottle could have leaked its contents everywhere!

                I know that did not happen but since the police were role playing they could have made a meal of those bins. Instead they waited until 2 August and then sent a man with a van.

          1. Destroying Item within a Government Facility would take lots of
            paperwork in triplicate plus 10 [Chance Of Getting Captured]
            I guessing but it would should not be easy.
            If you have managed getting an item out your best option is
            dumping rather than taking back.

        4. It seems to have been important that Dawn’s body was kept alive for long enough to have the cover story in place and supporting evidence sourced. One of the advantages is that biosamples of living tissue could be obtained.

          As an aside, apart from Charlie, Dawn and Sam, who else spent Friday night partying at Charlie’s flat and what sort of partying* was it?

          * This is not meant in a prurient or voyeuristic way

  20. Collection of Charlie’s memories and his brother Matthew’s statements

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44839805
    15 July 2018
    The nerve agent that poisoned two people in Amesbury was contained in a perfume bottle, the brother of one of the victims has said.

    Matthew Rowley said his brother Charlie, who is seriously ill in hospital, told him he had picked up the perfume bottle.

    The Metropolitan Police, which is leading the investigation, refused to confirm the claim.
    Previously the force has said only that it was found in a “small bottle”.

    Matthew Rowley told BBC News he was still upset about his brother’s condition after speaking to him on the telephone.

    He said Charlie Rowley was “absolutely not the brother I know” though he said he was now eating solid food.

    BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the information about the bottle could be a significant clue for investigators trying to isolate the source of the nerve agent and identify who administered it.
    “Where did it come from, where was it bought, is it something that is very rare, is it something that’s unusual, is it something that was bought in a particular shop at a particular time?” he said.
    “That could be absolutely vital for the investigation to find out who was responsible for the attack on the Skripals and also for the latest attack.”

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6786797/novichok-charlie-rowley-matthew-dawn-sturgess-salisbury-poisoning/
    15 Jul 2018, 22:34, updated 16 Jul 2018, 1:02

    He said: “He was semi-woken and said ‘they killed my girlfriend, they killed my ¬girlfriend’. He was very angry and crying. He said he’s feeling horrible.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961781/Female-assassin-carried-perfume-bottle-containing-Novichok.html
    PUBLISHED: 09:39 BST, 17 July 2018 | UPDATED: 23:31 BST, 17 July 2018

    Mr Rowley, 47, said yesterday: ‘All I know, all Charles has said so far, is that it was a perfume bottle or an aftershave bottle, and they picked it up in a park, and they sprayed themselves with it.

    ‘It was nine days before they got ill that they picked it up. He’s not very healthy. It’s still 50/50, and his mental health has gone down as well.’

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6833484/novichok-poisoning-charlie-rowley-brother-surprised-hospital-release/
    21 July 2018, 14:59, updated 21 July 2018, 16:26
    According to the sibling, Charlie could not remember where he and Dawn picked up the small bottle believed to be the source of the contamination.

    But he added: “He definitely said to me that they found this bottle of something and Dawn sprayed it on her wrists and that he picked it up and broke it somehow – and that’s how he got it on his hands.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/21/novichok-victim-charlie-rowley-became-contaminated-breaking/
    21 JULY 2018 • 9:00PM
    Mr Rowley’s brother Matthew told The Sunday Telegraph his brother’s recollection of what took place was still “vague”, but he added: “He told me that they found something that looked like a perfume bottle. Dawn sprayed what was inside it on both her wrists and rubbed them together, like you do when you’re trying perfume.

    “Charlie said she then gave the bottle to him and somehow it splintered or broke in his hands. That’s how he must have got contaminated.”

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6840043/noviochok-charlie-rowley-survivor-poison/
    22 Jul 2018, 23:00

    Matthew said: “He has some memory loss. I’m not sure if it is from the Novichok or the hospital medication. He’s a bit foggy and frustrated.

    “Charlie said he can’t really talk on the phone. He said he can hear clicks and stuff like his calls are being listened to.”

    Drug addict Charlie has blasted Russian spies for killing girlfriend Dawn Sturgess, saying: “I’ll never get over what happened.”

    The couple are thought to have been drinking in Salisbury, Wilts, when they picked up a perfume bottle containing the toxin used in the failed assassination attempt on ex-spy Sergei Skripal in March.

    Matthew described how Dawn had sprayed it on her wrists before passing it to Charlie and the bottle fell apart in his hands.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6847859/charlie-rowley-novichok-guilt-gifting-perfume-dawn/
    23 July 2018, 22:30

    “I remember finding a cosmetic bottle which I had picked up and gave it to Dawn as a present.

    “I feel very sad about what happened to her, it’s awful and shocking. I was still on medication when they told me she passed away. I don’t think I will ever be able to get over it.”

    Charlie remembers little of what happened but recalls the bottle breaking apart in his hands.

    htt1ps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/amesbury-novichok-victim-charlie-rowley-12965154
    9:25, 23 Jul 2018

    Matthew told how his brother has suffered memory loss but says he is unsure whether it is due to medication or the Novichok itself, according to the report.

    He said Charlie was ‘foggy and frustrated’.

    Matthew also claimed Charlie suspected his calls were being listened to, The Sun reported.
    A perfume bottle they found containing the Novichok , which Dawn is said to have sprayed on her wrists, was a brand only available in Russia.

    An inquest heard how Dawn never woke up after being contaminated by the nerve agent.
    The hearing, which lasted 15 minutes, heard how she had fallen ill on the morning of June 30 with “respiratory distress” at her partner’s home.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/novichok-victim-charlie-rowley-left-12969556
    22:53, 23 Jul 2018

    The devastating effects of deadly Novichok have left Charlie Rowley battling serious health issues.
    The nerve agent has not only made him traumatised, lethargic and suffering from memory loss – but he is also battling just to walk.

    Charlie, 45, exposed to the same substance that killed his partner Dawn Sturgess, is being guarded by police in a safe house after spending 20 days in intensive care.

    But his brother Matthew Rowley has managed to talk to him on the phone.
    Matthew, 47, revealed: “His legs are playing up and he can’t really walk. He was up on Sunday but he is really weak still.
    “I’ve been trying to push him for information but he has been through a really traumatic thing.

    “It’s difficult talking to him as he still can’t really remember anything.

    Charlie and mum-of-three Dawn, 44, were drinking in a park in Salisbury, Wilts, when they picked up a perfume bottle containing Novichok. It is believed the toxin was discarded following the failed attempt to kill former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, 67, and daughter Yulia, 33.

    Dawn, who sprayed the chemical on her wrists, collapsed at Charlie’s home in Amesbury, Wilts, on June 30.
    She died nine days later in hospital.

    Charlie is understood to have come into contact with Novichok when the bottle splintered in his hands.

    “But he’s very lethargic and he does not seem himself. He’s really bored.
    “He’s looking forward to getting a TV. He told me I can visit him now.”

    1. They SOOOOO wanted the perfume bottle to be the same one as used on 4 March… they thought they were nearly there, all they needed was to explain how Charlie got perfume on his hands… so they came up with the idea that the bottle broke. But this was just too silly, when has that happened before? So they came up with a ‘special applicator’ for Charlie to fit and spray himself in the process. It was still silly but now Charlie was contaminated first, so we could all move on to how Dawn became poisoned.

      So I have just one question – why was the ITV interview allowed to go out with Charlie saying the bottle was wrapped? It strikes me as strange that it was not edited out of the broadcast interview, as it destroyed the whole story.

      1. Cosmetic Bottle found but no mention of it being boxed and bacon wrapped.
        Until Interview as you say!
        Clicks on phone? No wrap found in kitchen or kitchen bin. Over damaged
        box appears with a later made 3D model bottle applicator.
        Original bottle shown didn’t look broken or damaged?
        Is this “The Land Of Make believe”?

  21. If you assume that everything Bellinghoax is saying is correct:
    https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1144697596109295618

    there are still a couple of points that look very odd.

    1) Denis booked his flights on 1 March and flew on 2 March – why is an alleged major general in the GU booking his own ‘last minute’ flights? How long had this operation been planned? Had Denis forgotten to book them earlier? Does the GU not have an admin team that books flights and hotels etc.? Do all GU officers heading off on a mission have to book their own tickets?
    2) There is absolutely nothing at all in the Bellinghoax narrative that links Denis with P&B. Urban alleges that Denis “commanded the team” – how did he do that if he didn’t meet P&B and didn’t even travel to Salisbury?

    Back in February, Bellinghoax said:
    “It is unclear what Fedotov’s role may have been, if any, in the preparation and execution of the poisoning operation. We could also not establish if he traveled to Salisbury on any of the days he was in the UK.”
    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/14/third-suspect-in-skripal-poisoning-identified-as-denis-sergeev-high-ranking-gru-officer/

    There does not appear to be any new information that clarifies Denis’ role, and there is no phone record that places Denis in Salisbury, yet Urban now has him ‘commanding’ the operation. Really?

    1. Super graphic’s of cell phone activity but another fuzzy photofit image of a Suspect.
      Does UK Government believe this “Trash” from Bellingcat?

    2. It’s more obvious than ever that Bellingcat, Urban and the other common suspects are the intelligence services´secret weapon. Not so secret anymore.
      This third suspect is again dragged into the limelight, so that even the last doubter will be convinced of Russia’s guilt. Since the wildest speculation is an effective means.
      Now they want to sell us the “last minute assassination”…

      Elena Evdokimova has a good thread :
      https://twitter.com/elenaevdokimov7/status/1144942645636038661?fbclid=IwAR1hQ_fWHmWQvAiEJ7Q6-FOpCHGOvrlW-0ZSsEKT20iz4o4plQHmBFb7FuA

      2. Bellingcat has access to a huge amount of leaked data, and not for use in the Skripal case.

        It also somehow managed to obtain a database of Russian of plane passengers, going back five years. B’cat’s second in command Aric Toler used it to discover trips taken by separatists from eastern Ukraine to Moscow, which he tweeted about recently.
        Not exactly ‘open source’.
        https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1139268018217857025

    3. Mark Urban hints that Denis Sergeyev’s role was to supply the two assassins with the weapon when he met them near Waterloo station:

      “… there was a 30 to 40-minute window when Maj Gen Sergeyev could have met the others before they caught a train from nearby Waterloo station to carry out their final reconnaissance in Salisbury.
      Police are still probing the questions of when Mr Chepiga and Mr Mishkin were given the Novichok nerve agent and how they disposed of it on 4 March.”

      I’m sure that when Denis met them he said something like this, since it fills a big hole in the official narrative:

      “Agent Chepiga, agent Mishkin, here’s the bottle of Novichok. And here’s the latest version of the door handle manual that I just downloaded to my phone. By the way, the 4G network here is really good – I’ve clocked up a gigabyte already.

      Unfortunately I forget to pack the decontamination equipment because of the last minute rush booking the tickets. But don’t worry, you can pick up some Marigolds and baby wipes in the Co-op shop in Wilton Road in Salisbury – they’ll do the job just as well – just keep walking past the Shell station instead of turning right to the traitor’s house, and you’ll soon see the Co-op shop on the left.”

  22. Strange how some of the main players in this story have gone off grid.
    Basau,Pritchard,Bailey. Wonder why sex worker hasn’t appeared yet
    selling his/her story about antics in London?
    If another person has did die {Male?} I wonder what part he was playing
    in the Novijoke game.
    Or will it be the Homeless Person found dead around same time in
    woodlands with suspected drug problems {bad drugs?}
    Will this be written into the story at a later date by TPTB so further charges
    can be brought against P&B?

  23. Does T. May really believe the Novihoax nonsense or is she just saying what she’s been told to say by the spooks?

  24. “Although he spent much of his 2018 visit to the UK secreted away in Paddington, the phone data shared with Newsnight shows that on the morning of 3 March, Maj Gen Sergeyev made his way to the centre of the city, passing by Oxford Circus on his way to the Thames Embankment”.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48801205

    Was he visiting MI5 at Thames House, Millbank?

  26. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48801205

    I told you. Bellingcat schmelingcat. Mark Urban said this at the book signing 21 October 2018.
    Fedotov and Mishkin were in the UK together in 2017 and 2016.
    And as I said you don’t travel three times to kill someone. You climb over the fence and knife them. He was on the electoral register.
    No – they came to meet Sergei and Pablo..pick up and drop stuff for them.
    So this time either MI5/CIA were waiting for the Russians and used their presence to disappear Sergei and Pablo…or…the Russians succeeded and exfiltrated him.

    1. “He was on the electoral register.”

      And also the BT phone directory: Name, phone number & address

      1. Exactly. I understand Russia not wanting to compromise anybody in Sergei’s spy ring who hasn’t been exposed.
        But it must be the greatest Intelligence op ever. To turn Pablo Miller. Fake Sergei being exposed by Spanish intelligence. Pretend to incarcerate Sergei. Have Pablo, seemingly as an aside, ask for Sergei to be included in the Anna Chapman spy swap (which made no sense at all).
        Then have Yulia “choose” Salisbury as their residence. Sergei then starts pottering around Salisbury Plain, Porton Down, befriending ex nuclear sub crew.
        My guess in 2016 and 2017 Sergei went to Waterloo for the bag swap. But 2018 first the snow stopped him, then Yulia’s arrival. So the exchange had to be in Salisbury.
        P&B came on the Saturday to recce a suitable place for the exchange. They decided on the bin at the bottom of Sainsbury’s steps. They left a bag of bread, Sergei did a switcheroo during the duck feeding.
        But they had been rumbled and as a joke MI5 used “Novichok” as the weapon because that was what had been purloined from Porton Down to send to Russia.
        The PD mole then hung on to his/her hot sample till the heat cooled down, then chucked it in the dumpster.
        Unfortunately Charlie found it.

        1. Patrick Mahony said : “The PD mole then hung on to his/her hot sample till the heat cooled down, then chucked it in the dumpster.”
          Couldn’t a Porton Down insider get rid of Novichok in a more professional manner ?

          1. Some PD scientists are not always professional:
            https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9390828/mod-scientist-child-sex-claims-paedophile-hunters/

            That said, I cannot believe that any PD mole would have used a counterfeit bottle from Russia as his/her “container of choice”. How safe were the seals on the bottle? How strong was the glass?

            I think it is highly likely that a perfume bottle of Novichok did not exist until it was created by The Met sometime after Dawn fell ill.

            1. @paul a Russian state actor wouldn’t use a fake Nina Ricci bottle, if the purpose was to bring a substance into the UK. It would be a perfect, genuine Chanel bottle.
              Taking out in Yulia’s hold baggage though it makes sense.
              And @inquirer, what is the official methodology, for someone looking at 40 years in jail, to safely dispose of novichok?

              1. Patrick, there are at least 101 reasons why I do not believe that Yulia had anything to do with the perfume bottle. The first is that no nerve agent, Novichok or otherwise was involved – that is just HMG’s fairytale. Secondly the bottle is an obvious counterfeit and would have been seized by customs if they had found it. You are not allowed to bring any counterfeit goods into the UK – if found, it will be confiscated. No ‘spy’ would run that risk.

                I believe that whatever happened in Salisbury on 4 March, there was no Novichok – I believe that the same is true for 30 June in Amesbury. The big giveaway is that hundreds, who ought to have done, didn’t die.

                1. @paul I didn’t say there was any novichok. I said MI5 used it as the “Cluedo weapon” for a sick joke.
                  And I didn’t say Yulia brought it in. I said it would go out in her (or another couriers) hold baggage. As a wrapped liquid isn’t allowed in plastic liquids bag.
                  I am starting to wonder about some of the posters on here, determined to reject the most logical, if most at odds with officialdom’s version.
                  I said Urban stated at the talk Fedotov and Mishkin visited together on the exact same dates in 2016 and 2017 as the 2018 arrival/departure dates.
                  If they were assassins they would have killed him stone dead in 2016. His address was freely available.
                  You’d have to imagine Vlad and Scott Putin arguing “Son, the way to do this is over three years using an exotic but easily traceable toxin that might not work”. Whilst Scott says “Dad, just get a gun and – BOOM!’

                  1. Patrick, The fake bottle came FROM Russia (or the UAE where it was probably made). Why would MI5 or anybody else bring a fake bottle into the UK so that something could be smuggled back TO Russia, when there is a limitless supply of bottles already available in the UK, many of which would be of a known and better quality? If that is logical, the logic escapes me.

                    1. @paul Skripal supplied the Nina Ricci bottle to his PD insider.
                      MI5 did not use novichok against Skripal. They said the GRU did. They then disappeared Skripal and Miller.
                      The PD insider, when they thought the heat had gone off them sufficiently, put the Nina Ricci bottle in the dumpster.
                      I lost interest in all this 9 months ago.
                      Once Urban said the same guys came on the same dates three years running it was patently obvious they are not assassins. If the GRU had wanted Skripal dead they would have killed him by a simple method in 2016.
                      To think anything else is deliberately obtuse.

              2. Patrick Mahony asked : ” what is the official methodology, for someone looking at 40 years in jail, to safely dispose of novichok?”
                My answer is : hydrolysis, aka decomposition in water.
                “Although most nerve agents decompose slowly in water, raising the pH of decontamination solution may speed hydrolysis. (…) In the case of Novichok agents, hydrolysis produces (…)”
                Peter R. Chai , Bryan D. Hayes , Timothy B. Erickson & Edward W. Boyer, “Novichok agents: a historical, current, and toxicological perspective”, Toxicology Communications, Volume 2, 2018 – Issue 1, Accepted 07 May 2018, Published online: 29 Jun 2018.
                https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24734306.2018.1475151

                1. Okay @inquirer So you think it was brought into the UK by the GRU hit squad. In their hold baggage? I don’t see any in the CCTV screen grabs on arrival.
                  And after they used it they resealed it, put it in a bin, then it was in the bin for 3 months?
                  No. There are only two alternatives. It was foisted on Charlie by spooks directly or through awareness of bin diving.
                  Or it was something to do with the original events. It might not have been in the possession of the PD scientist who obtained it, but a middleman, not so au fait with Messrs Chai , Haye, Erickson and Boyer.

                  1. Patrick Mahony said “Okay @inquirer So you think it was brought into the UK by the GRU hit squad.”

                    No, I don’t think that. I have no firm opinion about the Skripal case, but I think that the Amesbury has nothing in common with it. In particular, I think there was no bottle that played a role in both cases and I think there was no Novichok in the Amesbury case.
                    You had written : “But they had been rumbled and as a joke MI5 used “Novichok” as the weapon because that was what had been purloined from Porton Down to send to Russia. The PD mole then hung on to his/her hot sample till the heat cooled down, then chucked it in the dumpster.
                    Unfortunately Charlie found it.”
                    So I thought you seriously said that a Porton Down mole had chucked Novichok in the dumpster and Charlie had found it. I objected that a Porton Down mole could likely get rid of Novichok in a more professional manner.

            2. “…carrying a bag of cheap lace thongs”.

              Would it have been OK if they were expensive ones?

        2. There was no nerve agent. That is why no one died that day and that is why unprotected police officers could stand yards away from the door handle in complete safety.

  27. Dear Subjects,

    One is not amused at One’s Royal Cipher being used on what We believe is known by One’s subjects as a “blog”, especially when it dares to accuse One’s Esteemed Majesty’s democratically-elected Government as lacking in integrity. It is a Subject’s patriotic Duty to uphold and promote One’s Government’s position at all times – both at home and in Our Colonies and Dominions beyond the seas.

    We are also deeply displeasured at the use of the fake cipher DiiR, as if that upstart Diana would have ever have been allowed to become Queen. (thankfully My Majesty’s obedient servants, the intelligence services, pre-empted that preposterous possibility, in a timely and efficient way, and with minimal loss of life).

    We henceforth order all Subjects to desist forthwith, on pain of facing justice in one of My Majesty’s Crown’s courts.

    By order,

    My Gracious Majesty EiiR,
    …by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Amen.
    [all bow in submission while Our Glorious Anthem is played]

  28. Back to early July 2018.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5919211/Amesbury-couple-exposed-Novichok-poison-fight-lives.html
    PUBLISHED: 23:12 BST, 4 July 2018 | UPDATED: 21:34 BST, 5 July 2018
    Police are hunting for the deadly syringe or vial laced with Novichok that poisoned a couple in Salisbury as they finally evacuated homes five days after they fell catastrophically ill.

    One friend of the couple, who were known to be drug users, believes they may have found a syringe believing it contained heroin rather than the deadly poison used by assassins Britain claims were sent by Russia.
    ‘It was definitely an accident. I think they found a package and it looked like drugs’, she said.
    …
    The working theory is that they stumbled on a syringe discarded by whoever attacked the Skripals, which would have been almost impossible to spot.

    More than 100 counter-terrorism officers along with Wiltshire police have locked down every place the couple went after their exposure in a bid to retrace their steps.

    They have also dragged along friends of the known drug addicts and grilled them on where Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley went after they were exposed – potentially in a Salisbury park.

    The couple’s close friend Sam Hobson, 29, said police took him to every place the couple visited – many with him in tow – to see if investigators missed anything or if the victims touched ‘something they shouldn’t have’.

    On Friday, Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley spend several hours in Salisbury, calling at a chemist, an off-licence and a charity shop.

    They then went to relax in Queen Elizabeth Gardens near where the Skripals were found collapsed in March.
    That evening Mrs Sturgess returned to her flat near Zizzi restaurant, where the Skripals had eaten before falling ill.

    After spending the night in Salisbury, Mrs Sturgess travelled to her boyfriend Charles’ newly built housing association home in Muggleton Road, Amesbury, on Saturday morning.

    The couple went for a walk to a Baptist Church but Ms Sturgess felt unwell and returns to her boyfriend’s home where an ambulance was called to take her to hospital at 11am.

    Mr Rowley then visited a Boots chemist, before returning home to collect some clothes for his girlfriend to take to her in hospital.

    But he then began sweating and convulsing himself before collapsing at home on Saturday afternoon. An ambulance was called and he was taken to hospital.

    On Monday, knowing the couple were drug users, police issue an urgent warning to drug users with a detective saying the couple may have taken a contaminated batch of drugs.
    —————————————————————————————————————
    Remarkable:

    “The couple went for a walk to a Baptist Church but Ms Sturgess felt unwell and returns to her boyfriend’s home where an ambulance was called to take her to hospital at 11am”.

    In the DM piece, there is no reference as to who gave this info. My assumption would be that the source was one of the paramedics who had taken Dawn to hospital. As the paramedic had no right to talk about patients with journalists, he asked them not to make any reference. In turn, the paramedics heard the above info from Charlie, when they arrived to his home and he tried to explain what happened.

    A strange statement:

    “After spending the night in Salisbury, Mrs Sturgess travelled to her boyfriend Charles’ newly built housing association home in Muggleton Road, Amesbury, on Saturday morning.”

    But Dawn travelled to the flat in Muggleton Road on Friday night, together with Charlie and the friends Craig Pattenden and Sam Hobson. Perhaps the above statement was just an assumption by the journalists.

    1. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/986001/amesbury-poisoning-news-latest-dawn-sturgess-dead-dies-charlie-rowley
      PUBLISHED: 11:59, Mon, Jul 9, 2018 | UPDATED: 13:08, Mon, Jul 9, 2018

      Her grieving mother Caroline said: “It’s not looking good for Charlie either. Maybe a few days. He won’t pull out of this either. He’s just alive with the machines.

      “Dawn died before 10pm. Her body just shut down. With her drink and drug addiction, her body wasn’t strong enough to deal with this.”

        1. “Thus, if the Express is correct, Dawn Sturgess was still a drugs addict.”

          Compare to The Guardian, 15 February 2019 1700GMT:

          “Caroline [Sturgess, Dawn’s mother] took huge comfort from the fact that no recreational drugs were found in her daughter’s bloodstream and no disease in her liver or other organs.”

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/15/novichok-victim-dawn-sturgess-parents-tell-of-their-anger-and-hurt

          Not that the parents of many an adult offspring will necessarily know all the details of a mid-40s lifestyle, but if The Guardian is correct then Dawn was progressing well with her rehabilitation.

          1. Dawn was not addicted to “recreational” drugs, she had a problem with prescribed antidepressants. The toxicology results showed no recreational drugs in her system.

            Current Official Narrative

            Dawn Charlie and Sam travel in bus back to Amesbury from Salisbury on the evening of June 29th

            Sam stays the night with Dawn and Charlie

            Sam goes to see his child in Amesbury in the morning of the 30th

            Dawn becomes unwell, Charlie calls an ambulance and is instructed via the phone how to perform CPR

            Sam returns to Charlie’s flat as Dawn is being put in the ambulance, he said she looked dead and was breathing by use of a ventilator.

            Sam and Charlie go into town to get Charlie’s methadone, something to eat and stuff for Dawn in hospital

            Sam and Charlie return to the flat, Charlie becomes ill, Sam calls and ambulance and opens all the windows because he fears a gas leak

          2. Eleanor said : “if The Guardian is correct then Dawn was progressing well with her rehabilitation.”
            The Daily Mail article quoted by Milda says :
            [QUOTE]
            The relationship between Dawn and her parents has been strained for many years. Her father, Stephen, has disowned her over her drinking and has not seen her for more than a decade, family members said.
            [/QUOTE]
            Thus, it is possible that Dawn Sturgess’s parents didn’t know very much about her drug user career. As I already said, Dawn’s family and The Powers That Be have a common interest in minimizing the place of drugs in Dawn’s life

            1. I confess that I still find this problematic, Inquirer, although I do respect your right to have a different view to mine.

              On balance, I’m in agreement with the anonymous reply that differentiates between what I might describe as a drug addict and an individual who may have become dependent on prescription drugs. Illogically maybe, I have never thought of anyone with alcohol dependency issues as a ‘drug addict’ even though some would see it that way.

              Deep down, my definitions may be based on what are illegal and what are legal sources of such substances. I am very conscious that to some, any contact with any form or drugs or alcohol is viewed as abusive and definable drug dependency. By which standards, I too am a drug addict of the over the counter or prescribed variety.

              Even worse, I cautiously trust the content of The Guardian over that of the Daily Mail or the Daily Express.

              TBH my head is more full of Dawn, one year ago on a sunny Saturday morning, becoming ill at about this time of day.

            2. If you want to believe Dawn was a (recreational) drug addict then that is up to you but if you want to convince the rest of us you need to come up with some evidence and not gossip / disinformation and propaganda put out by a deceiving media.

              It’s the anniversaries of the Amesbury poisoning tomorrow and the death of Dawn next week if you are intent on sullying Dawn’s memory with conspirartorial tittle tattle then please could you do it somewhere else.

              If you don’t know the facts and have nothing to support weird theories then keep quiet about them rather than attacking Dawn’s character.

              Her parents complained that the press coverage of their daughters death could lead impressionable members of the public with no knowledge of the facts to make unfavourable conclusions about their daughter and lead to false rumours about her lifestyle thereby tarnishing her memory.

              You have proved them right and continue to insist on carping your nonsense at this particularly most difficult time for Dawn’s family and loved one’s.

              But I suppose if you get satisfaction from that, that is a good enough reason.

              Pathetic.

              1. Anonymous said : “if you are intent on sullying Dawn’s memory with conspirartorial tittle tattle then please could you do it somewhere else.”

                Please, Anonymous, do not use the sentimental card. There are sources that Dawn Sturgess was still a drug addict, everyone is free to draw his conclusions, but we should not be blind to some of the documentation.

              2. Anonymous aka Peter Beswick,

                Do you really believe that Dawn was poisoned with the perfume bottle’s Novichok which she allegedly sprayed on her wrists? Do you believe that Dawn sprayed a nerve agent in front of her face, thus inhaling it, and did not die immediately?

                The best thing which can be done in Dawn’s memory would be the disclosure of what had really happened with Charlie and Dawn in late June 2018.

                1. Early msm reports say the 2 sons lived with their grandfather and the girl lived with her grandmother. Sounds like Dawn had lost custody of her 3 children. The usual reasons are either neglect and/or drug use.

                  The biggest clue as to who is behind the perfume bottle hoax is in the name “Premier” = football. MI5/6 just taking the pi**

  29. “Normalization of our bilateral relations is impossible until Russia stops its irresponsible and destabilizing actions,” said a spokesman for May. “The prime minister made it clear that the United Kingdom has irrefutable evidence that Russia is behind the attack in Salisbury. She said that such actions should never be repeated, and that the United Kingdom wants the two people who are responsible for what happened to be brought to justice. ”

    Has anyone seen any of this ” irrefutable evidence” by any chance?

    1. No Daniel, it is just a Novi-lie to add to the already large pile of Novi-lies. Is it only 2 people… what about Denis the Menace… but they clearly have nothing on him. And what happened to the ‘team of 6’ they were so keen to push last year? Blogmirers might be able to guess what all 6 Russians were up to on 4 March – but TPTB can never speak about them, because it will destroy the narrative if they tell you what any of them were really doing.

  30. Who is this Barber with no intelligence or is he just a Barber?
    Where has he been last fifteen months?
    My local alleged MP does not even reply emails.
    He will be getting a free TV License and other luxury benefits on tax payers
    money.
    Don’t Pay License Robbery. Prisons are full so they cant lock us all up.
    It may make BBC Crime Police Figures look good but its all Crap BS.

    Don’t Pay For Propaganda Or Alleged MPs. Legal Criminals All Of Them!

  31. Denis the spy commander.
    It seems that Bellingcrap can get his phone records, which must be a breach of GDPR law, but we can’t get a decent mug shot.

    Looking at the tracking, Denis might have met the other two agents on HMS Belfast.
    Give me strength.

  32. Latest news is more revelations on the ‘third man’ in the Novichok story and, as the BBC says,
    “Bellingcat’s coup in obtaining his phone records follows its success in accessing travel, passport, and motoring databases for the suspects.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48801205

    I’m sure that Bellingcat’s coup was a result of exhaustive open source investigation by citizen journalists, and not just a leak by western intelligence agencies! And it’s pure coincidence that this information is published on the day when Theresa May meets Putin at the G20 to talk about improving relations between the UK and Russia.

    1. Bellingcat hand in glove with Mark Urban – what a dream team…
      According to Bellingcat´s own statements they have access to both Russian and English telephone data.
      “Bellingcat’s coup in obtaining his phone records follows its success in accessing travel, passport, and motoring databases for the suspects.”
      But Higgins still denies that he works together with intelligence services …

      3. I told you all. Urban knew this in October last year at the book signing. He said Fedotov and Mishkin were in UK together in 2016 and 2017. So it has come from SIS not Bellingcat.

        1. LOL and from another tweet in the same thread:

          “Sergeev/Fedotov got into Heathrow at 10:33am local time , then went from Terminal 4 to downtown London.”

          Speakers of English English wouldn’t use the term ‘downtown London’, it’s more a hallmark of American English. The hand of Dan Kazseta, staff writer at Bellingcat and with connections to the Integrity Initiative may be at work here.

  33. Does the actual FT have the same wording? Or is the Kremlin version merely an incredibly bad translation.
    Questions asked in English, translated into Russian, and then back again.
    Either that or Barber knows less about Salisbury than a dead duck.

    And I wish Putin would have used the opportunity to namecheck Pablo Miller. Or are the Russians not mentioning him for the same reason as the Brits. It was Skripal running him not vice versa.

    2. Barber told me he “misspoke”.

      Under the pressure of a face to face with Putin.
      Barber acknowledged the fact that he was wrong.

  34. We know that when the FT editor Lionel Barber interviewed Putin, he got his facts all wrong about the poisoning deaths in Salisbury.

    It was therefore surprising to hear him talk on LBC radio today about the “immense preparation” he did for the interview. He said he spoke to five Russia experts beforehand about how he should handle it (at 10:35 in the link).

    He therefore must have had time to prepare for his question on Salisbury as well. Somehow, that subject wasn’t worth much preparation.
    https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/ft-editor-behind-the-scenes-look-vladimir-putin/

    Not surprisingly, Barber and the radio host looked at everything from an anti-Russian perspective, including the Skripal case (at about 6 min, he basically says that Russia did it to send an unambiguous message to traitors).

    Earlier (at 3:45), when talking about Angela Merkel’s decision to allow in about a million asylum seekers, Barber blames Russia for causing the refugee crisis by being involved in the war in Syria. He doesn’t seem to realise that the Russian armed forces did not intervene in Syria until after Merkel opened the gates to all asylum seekers. For the four and a half years of war before that, the western allies were supposedly fighting the Islamist militants, but obviously not very effectively (since millions of Syrians fled their homes).

    1. He tried to trick Putin into the headlines he needed ie support for Donald Trump, populism etc.
      Putin did not mind delivering, I think.
      In the Skripal case he probably tried Putin to say something like the death of a female drug addict not being that important.
      Putin was either completely out of his depth throughout the interview, did not care or was underprepared.
      See John Helmer for making fun of Putin’s statements
      https://twitter.com/bears_with

  35. “Putin blamed again for fake news.

    The all powerful Russian leader again invoked his super powers by getting a senior UK journalist to lie.
    In a bizarre twist, the Russian leader was able through hypnosis or telepathy to force a senior UK journalist to ask a fake question.
    UK sources say it is possible that the UK interviewer had been drugged or possibly a nerve agent had been deployed”

    1. “An aerosol can of Truth air-freshener, used to refresh the room, was discreetly removed. It is not known whether the contents were authentic, or a bespoke formulation known as Boutique.”

      1. Same aerosol was used for making Australian Cricket Captain cry when
        he got rumbled for rubbing ball with sandpaper in his pocket.
        Pinprick eyes tears and lost everything….Now then could this be another
        aerosol lie of same type used in Salisbury?

  36. Theresa’s face is a picture. Looks like she chewing a wasp.
    I have no respect for that evil May.
    Vlad takes her for the Novijoke she is. Laughing at her for
    the World to see.
    Good One Mr Putin.

    2. She chocking on a Jaffa Cake before limping through a Weet Field.
      Singing Salisbury Is Alive With The Sound Of Hoax Novijoke .

      She cant talk the talk or walk the walk. Totally Useless & Inept.

  37. PUTIN ON SKRIPAL
    On Kremlin´s website – so highly official !

    June 27, 2019
    Interview with The Financial Times
    On the eve of the G20 summit, Vladimir Putin spoke with The Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber and Moscow Bureau Chief Henry Foy.
    Lionel Barber: Let us talk about another democracy in Europe, my own country. You are going to have a meeting with Mrs May, which is going to be one of her last meetings before she steps down as Prime Minister. Do you think that there is a possibility of some improvement in Anglo-Russian relations and that we can move on from some of these issues that are obviously of great sensitivity, like the Skripal affair? Or do you think that we are going to stay in a deep freeze for the next three or five years?
    Vladimir Putin: Listen, all this fuss about spies and counter-spies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks. Or even five pounds, for that matter. And the issues concerning interstate relations, they are measured in billions and the fate of millions of people. How can we compare one with the other?
    The list of accusations and allegations against one another could go on and on. They say,
    “You poisoned the Skripals.” Firstly, this must be proved.
    Secondly, the average person listens and says, “Who are these Skripals?” And it turns out that Skripal was engaged in espionage against us [Russia]. So this person asks the next question, “Why did you spy on us using Skripal? Maybe you should not have done that?” You know, these questions are infinite. We need to just leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it.
    But we know that businesses in the United Kingdom (by the way, I had a meeting with our British colleagues in this same room), they want to work with us, they are working with us and intend to continue doing so. And we support this intent.
    I think that Mrs May, despite her resignation, could not help but be concerned that these spy scandals made our relations reach a deadlock so we could not develop our ties normally and support business people, who are doing what? They do not only earn money, this is what is on the outside. They create jobs and added value, plus they provide revenue at all levels of the tax system of their countries. This is a serious and multifaceted job, with the same risks you mentioned, including risks related to business operations. And if we add an unpredictable political situation, they will not be able to work at all.
    I think that both Russia and the United Kingdom are interested in fully restoring our relations. At least I hope that a few preliminary steps will be made. I think it would be easier for Mrs May, maybe, because she is leaving and is free to do what she thinks is right, important and necessary and not to bother about some domestic political consequences.
    Lionel Barber: Some people might say that a human life is worth more than five pennies. But do you believe, Mr President that whatever happened…
    Vladimir Putin: Did anybody die?
    Lionel Barber: Oh yes. The gentleman who had a drug problem and he died after touching the Novichok in the car park. I mean somebody did that because of the perfume. It was more than one person that died, not the Skripals. I am just…
    Vladimir Putin: And you think this is absolutely Russia’s fault?
    Lionel Barber: I did not say that. I said somebody died.
    Vladimir Putin: You did not say that, but if it has nothing to do with Russia… Yes, a man died, and that is a tragedy, I agree. But what do we have to do with it?
    Lionel Barber: Let me just ask this and I really want to talk about the Russian economy. Do you believe that what happened in Salisbury sent an unambiguous message to anyone who is thinking of betraying the Russian state that it is fair game?
    Vladimir Putin: As a matter of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished.
    This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it.
    As concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime that one can imagine.
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60836

    How to interpret Putin’s statements ?
    Putin attaches very little importance to the Skripal case. It´s “fuss about spies and counter-spies, it is not worth serious interstate relations“.
    These „spy scandals“ – „let security agencies deal with it“.
    But the Kremlin has nothing to do with it, because Sergei was already punished by Russia and has no value for them anymore.
    On the other side „treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished“.
    Knowing Putin´s past, he would have a great deal of understanding if other security agencies would punish Sergei, if he betrayed them.

    Provided that Putin is honest, which scenarios are conceivable ?
    1. Sergei has betrayed MI6 and they punished him.
    2. Sergei has betrayed another security agency (for example CIA) and they punished him.
    3. MI6 had to put Sergei out of action because another force wanted to get his hands on him.

    The latter seems most likely to me, assumed that P&B were not in Salisbury by chance.
    P&B may have acted on behalf of an oligarch who needed valuable information about (for example) Browder.
    Don´t forget that it were Browder and Urban who presented there side of the coin already on March 5, 2018.

    Now for the most amazing part of the interview :
    Lionel Barber said : “The gentleman who had a drug problem and he died after touching the Novichok in the car park. I mean somebody did that because of the perfume. It was more than one person that died, not the Skripals.”

    HÄ ??? Is Barber ill informed or has he insider knowledge ?
    Charlie did not die and it was never mentioned anywhere that he touched Novichok in the car park !
    Which car park ? Salisbury car park ?
    How can Barber claim this ???
    Additionally he said “It was more than one person that died, not the Skripals.”
    Does he mean Dawn with the other person ?

    Surprisingly, Putin does not contradict: He said : “Yes, a man died, and that is a tragedy, I agree. But what do we have to do with it?”
    Is Putin ill informed too or is he just too polite to correct the interviewer ?

    Conspiracy theory : The man who poisoned the Skripals died on March 4 at Salisbury car park and was taken away by helicopter.

    PS.: Sorry Brendan, I made my own post.

    1. You’re overlooking the fact, Blunderbuss, that the Novichok incident(s) took place in a doppelganger universe. Indeed, the drug-user gentleman who died may not have been still-alive Charlie Rowley, at all.

      What are they talking about, and notably without contradiction? Although I can understand that Putin’s official position, of not following Wiltshire developments in any detail because they are of no interest to him or to Russia, could mean will not know that a woman is known to have died (and no, I don’t believe that he isn’t thoroughly briefed). As Liane above says, is there something else that happened, that has remained out of the public sphere … and might this be (part of) the reason why all cctv coverage must witheld?

      Traitors must be punished and Sergei has been punished by Russia seems the nearest to a denial of Russian involvement that there is going to be.

      1. The curious location of the above comment is a reliable indicator of unstated bafflement.

        It was intended as a reply to Blunderbuss’ comment about ducks …

    2. Firstly, how much time could Putin possibly have spent on the Salisbury incident with all the other things he has to deal with? He cannot possibly know all the detail of Salisbury and Amesbury was hardly a blip on his radar; it would be astonishing if he knew much about that at all.

      What was Salisbury? I think it was a last ditch attempt to vilify Russia to try to turn world opinion against Putin and Russia because all military options (in the Middle East and elsewhere) had failed and world opinion was swinging against the US and the UK. It was supposed to be a rallying cry and it failed miserably because nobody believed it. Absolutely no momentum was gained and a lot of credibility was lost. If it had been true, it was an act of war!

      Putin’s interest in Salisbury/Amesbury was the geo-political aspect. That was all he needed to know and was concerned about, not the minutiae.

      Once Salisbury failed, for the rest of the world, that was it but in the UK they doubled down and went with Amesbury. Now I don’t know what happened to Dawn and Charlie but I do not believe they were exposed to Novichok and I do not believe the Met recovered a perfume bottle from Charlie’s flat. That is all lies – something else happened that the clowns tried to adapt into Novichok Mk.2. It was another pathetic failure.

      Barber conflates Salisbury and Amesbury: car park, door handles, man dying, perfume… Had anyone died on 4 March, I am sure it would have been headline news. It was EXACTLY what HMG wanted! That would certainly not have been covered up.

      So my conclusion is that Barber misled President Putin but of the two of them, the one who ought to have got his facts right was Barber.

      1. “So my conclusion is that Barber misled President Putin but of the two of them, the one who ought to have got his facts right was Barber.”

        The underlying question is whether this erroneous summary of the Salisbury death, as the public knows it, was intentional or merely as uninterested as either Barber or Putin seem to be.

        Putin doesn’t need to know the detail of what happened in Salisbury on 4 March, but he may recall that someone died in somewhere nearby, a few months later.

        Lionel Barber, as you say, should have got his basic facts right; unless he was being disingenuous. Either way, for this to have happened at a date so close to when Dawn Sturgess first became ill, will be distressing to those who knew her and loved her, and to those who remember her even at a distance. A private, if not public, apology to Dawn’s family and Charlie Rowley wouldn’t be inappropriate imo.

    3. Thanks for transcript. Liane , I’m confused at this by Journalist :

      A man that died by touching a car in a car park ?

  38. Financial Times editor Lionel Barber apparently believes that Charlie died – from touching Novichok in a car park – and Putin agrees with him:

    “Vladimir Putin: Did anybody die?

    Lionel Barber: Oh yes. The gentleman who had a drug problem and he died after touching the Novichok in the car park. I mean somebody did that because of the perfume. It was more than one person that died, not the Skripals. I am just…

    Vladimir Putin: And you think this is absolutely Russia’s fault?

    Lionel Barber: I did not say that. I said somebody died.

    Vladimir Putin: You did not say that, but if it has nothing to do with Russia… Yes, a man died, and that is a tragedy, I agree. But what do we have to do with it?”

    2. I’m surprised Barber didn’t bring up the dead ducks. Oh, sorry, there weren’t any.

    3. It was otherwise a really good interview – pity Barber took it down a blind alley getting his facts wrong but the next question was (I think) much more important:

      Lionel Barber: Let me just ask this and I really want to talk about the Russian economy. Do you believe that what happened in Salisbury sent an unambiguous message to anyone who is thinking of betraying the Russian state that it is fair game?

      Vladimir Putin: As a matter of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished.

      This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it.

      As concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime that one can imagine.

      1. Well, finally, after having been attacked with “Western values” for decades Putin has come out with a value counter-attack against “liberalism” and “multiculturalism”.
        His idea of “liberalism” is quite hazy though “the liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done”

        Oh well, let’s get some clarity here
        https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

        “As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.”

        1. anidea, you are confusing “classical liberalism” with “modern liberalism” – they are completely different. The term ‘liberal’ has been hijacked by leftists and is now an abomination of what liberalism really is. The easiest way to describe it, is to say that classical liberalism is about the rights of the individual, modern liberalism is about the collective with NO regard for the individual.

          Paine saw government as a “necessary evil” – he would be horrified to think you had confused him with a modern Democrat.

          As i keep saying elsewhere: “Who told these liberals they could speak for me?”

          1. 🙂

            There is one definition of “liberalism” and this is what Putin talks about.

            Your definition makes no sense. Not even in a US context. The US two party system has switched their positions a number of times.
            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070

            “The Republicans were against the slavery that underpinned the economy of the American South.

            Here is the source of modern confusion.

            The South was against tariffs – a liberal position – but it was willing to fight to the death over the right to maintain slavery, as illiberal a position as it is possible to imagine.

            Anyway, from that moment to the present, the word has been bathed in controversy.

            Nationalism is considered illiberal now. Liberals in America question free trade because it costs American workers their jobs. ”

            ….

            British Prime Minister David Cameron is, by the current American usage of the word, a liberal.

            He accepts the basic science surrounding climate change theories and is an advocate of gay rights. He even calls himself a progressive.

            The word liberal has been so debased in America by right-wing demagogues that liberals have for at least two decades preferred to call themselves progressives.

            It really is confusing – although perhaps the real transatlantic confusion is not over the meaning of the word liberal but over the meaning of the word conservative.”

            I guess there is confusion in the British Conservative Party now, too.

              1. But in all fairness the Journalist provoked him by asking for regime change in Russia.
                “Lionel Barber: Again a big picture question. I talked at the beginning of our conversation about fragmentation. Another phenomenon today is that there is a popular backlash against elites and against the establishment and you have seen that – Brexit in Britain. Perhaps you were speaking about Trump’s America. You have seen it with the AFD in Germany; you have seen it in Turkey; and you have seen it in the Arab world. How long do you think that Russia can remain immune to this global movement of backlash against the establishment?”

                1. “Another phenomenon today is that there is a popular backlash against elites and against the establishment and you have seen that – Brexit in Britain. Perhaps you were speaking about Trump’s America. You have seen it with the AFD in Germany; you have seen it in Turkey; and you have seen it in the Arab world.”
                  Nothing in France ?

                  1. He could have mentioned Le Pen but there seems to be an effort to keep the ‘Gilets Jaunes’ out of the news as much as possible.

                    I just did a quick check and there is nothing about the Gilets Jaunes in any of today’s European press anywhere except France. Today is the 33rd consecutive week of protests: so far, 15 people have died and hundreds have been seriously injured.

                    Meanwhile Macron worries about getting the 2015 Paris Climate Accord mentioned in the G20 final communique and threatened not to sign it if it was not mentioned… there is no need for me to write what I think, I am sure you can guess.

                    1. I think it might be because the ‘Gilets Jaunes’ are protesting against carbon taxes. In Europe, people are only allowed to demonstrate in favour of carbon taxes.

    1. The following vehicles are exempt and do not require vehicle tax to be paid on them, though a ‘nil value’ vehicle tax will need to be applied for:

      emergency vehicles – police, fire, ambulances
      lifeboat haulage vehicles
      etc,
      https://www.suffolk.police.uk/advice/roads-and-vehicles/vehicle-tax

      Vehicles used for police purposes do not need an MOT if they are serviced/repaired in approved workshops.
      https://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?21979-photo-of-a-police-car-taxed-no-mot

      1. Thanks Paul.

        WX60 CMV doesn’t seem to have ‘nil value’ vehicle tax so I assume it is one of the vehicles that has been buried.

        1. WPD didn’t bury any Mercedes vehicles:

          Wiltshire Police… destroyed double the amount of vehicles as the ambulance service (16), but only lost £88,091.

          These included a marked Vauxhall Vivaro, valued at £12,837, a marked Ford Ranger (£10,429), and an unmarked Vauxhall Astra (£9,780).

          Other vehicles scrapped included a further 10 Astras (both marked and unmarked), another marked Ford Ranger, a marked Honda CRV, and a marked Skoda Yeti.

          However, the force did confirm that six of these vehicles had no retail value, due to their age, and so no losses were accrued for their disposal.
          https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/17701663.wiltshire-emergency-services-rack-up-900k-bill-as-fleets-scrapped-following-novichok/

          1. Paul,

            Thank you. You are a mine of information.

            So what happened to the Mercedes WX60 CMV? Perhaps the police just parked it somewhere and forgot about it.

            The DVLA recently took away an untaxed Lexus from a road near me. I’d have thought someone who could afford a Lexus could afford to tax it. Perhaps he has a lot of cars and he just parked it and forgot about it.

          2. I wonder if this car scrappage is a fiddle. Maybe the police wanted some new cars so they needed an excuse to scrap some old ones.

  40. On 13 July, the Met announced:
    “On Wednesday, 11 July, a small bottle was recovered during searches of Charlie Rowley’s house in Amesbury. It was taken to the Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, Wiltshire, for tests.

    Following those tests, scientists have now confirmed to us that the substance contained within the bottle is Novichok.”
    http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-source-of-nerve-agent-contamination-identified-314322

    On 15 July, the BBC spoke to Matthew Rowley and reported:
    “The nerve agent that poisoned two people in Amesbury was contained in a perfume bottle, the brother of one of the victims has said.

    Matthew Rowley said his brother Charlie, who is seriously ill in hospital, told him he had picked up the perfume bottle.

    The Metropolitan Police, which is leading the investigation, refused to confirm the claim.

    Previously the force has said only that it was found in a “small bottle”.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44839805

    Also on 15 July, the OPCW arrived for the TAV.

    On 17 July, the DM reported:
    “Mr Rowley, 47, said yesterday: ‘All I know, all Charles has said so far, is that it was a perfume bottle or an aftershave bottle, and they picked it up in a park, and they sprayed themselves with it.

    ‘I’m going to talk to Charles later, and I’m trying my best to get the truth out of him about where he got it from, where it came from, what make it was.

    ‘It was nine days before they got ill that they picked it up.”
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961781/Female-assassin-carried-perfume-bottle-containing-Novichok.html

    On 18 July, the OPCW concluded the TAV.

    On 20 July Charlie left SDH and on 24 July his TV interview was broadcast.

    On 13 August the OPCW returned to collect an environmental sample.

    On 5 September The Met announced:
    “Charlie told police he found a box he thought contained perfume in a charity bin on Wednesday, 27 June. Inside the box was a bottle and applicator. He tried to put the two parts together at his home address on Saturday, 30 June, and in doing so got some of the contents on himself. He said Dawn had applied some of the substance to her wrists before feeling unwell.

    After Charlie told police where he found the box, cordons were put in place and two bins behind shops in Catherine Street, Salisbury, were removed.

    Previously, during a search of Charlie’s home address in Muggleton Road on 10 July a small box labelled as Nina Ricci Premier Jour was recovered from a rubbish bag in the kitchen. On 11 July a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop. Tests undertaken at DSTL established the bottle contained a significant amount of Novichok.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20180905102501/http://news.met.police.uk/news/counter-terrorism-police-release-images-of-two-suspects-in-connection-with-salisbury-attack-320534

    The question is: was there ever a ‘bottle of perfume’ in Charlie’s flat, or is the whole story fictitious?

    1. Since it took 11 days to find the bottle, it is safe to assume that Charlie did not mention the perfume to the paramedics who came for Dawn as they would surely have been interested in it. It is also safe to assume that Sam had no idea about the bottle or about any perfume as he would presumably have told the police. The same is true for Charlie’s friends in the red van plus anybody he spoke to in Boots, or the people from the church he spoke to at the hog roast. I would assume he spoke to all of them about what had happened to Dawn but it rather looks like he didn’t mention the perfume to anyone.

      When Charlie fell ill, Sam did not think about any perfume – which is strange because it was odourless and oily, did Charlie have so much to talk about with his friends that he didn’t mention the unusual thing that had happened to him just before Dawn stopped breathing… or did none of it ever happen?

      When the police found the bottle, they did not describe it as a ‘perfume’ bottle. Why? They would not even confirm it was a ‘perfume’ bottle when the BBC asked the direct question. Why? Two days later, Matthew was saying it was perfume or aftershave… how was that possible? Was the Met trying to confuse Charlie… or were they trying to decide whether perfume or aftershave was more likely to have ended up on both Dawn and Charlie? Was the Met using Matthew to see what reaction they got for the different stories? Note also that Matthew mentioned that Charlie had found the box “9 days earlier” – that story seems to have been quickly dropped as well.

      Was the “the bottle broke in Charlie’s hands” story part of the kite flying? Was that abandoned because, if Charlie had broken the bottle, it would have been difficult for Dawn to have become contaminated? Was aftershave abandoned because Dawn would not have used it? Was the ludicrous applicator ‘invented’ just so that Charlie had a reason to hold the bottle and spill some on his hands? Perhaps it was, the applicator is designed for spraying into a throat, it does not stop the bottle contents being atomised… which would have been lethal if P&B had used anything similar for a real nerve agent.

      Is this why the OPCW did not obtain a sample from the bottle on their first visit? Could the Met not decide which was the best story: perfume/aftershave/broken glass/applicator/etc. and the OPCW left on 18 July before it was resolved? Also note that the OPCW says it took a sample from the bottle on 13 August… when we first saw the bottle on 5 September, it was empty. Was it really left untouched for over a month and then emptied before the pictures were taken? Why?

      In Charlie’s interview, can anyone see any sign of ‘tube’ scars on 24 July, or other evidence that Charlie had been hooked up to 6 machines, only 7 days earlier (according to his brother – see the video in the DM article) with “tubes everywhere” and a 50/50 chance of survival? He is wearing a T-shirt… why does it not show off his scars? I cannot see anything on his wrists, or his neck, or the back of his hands… it is not a 100% clear view but I am surprised you see nothing. Compare with Yulia’s interview and the flaunting of her ‘scar’. Also note that Charlie says nothing about the strange applicator in the video: all he says is “you had to attach the pump dispenser”.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFaGuqHb7f4

      Before 5 September, The Met never did confirm the bottle they had found on 11 July was a perfume bottle. Why did the Met wait 8 weeks and then ask the public to help? Worse, they were still saying there could be more to be found but had not told anyone to watch out for a perfume bottle and had not mentioned Nina Ricci!

      Last but not least, the whole point of the bottle and applicator was as a delivery mechanism for Novichok but if there really never was any Novichok… what was the bottle for? If it was real, what was in the bottle? Why was an atomiser bottle needed? What was the idea of the applicator? Does the bottle play any role at all in the real story? Is any of what we have been told true? Anything at all?

      1. And as Columbo used to say: “There’s just one more thing”:

        Look again at what Basu said on 5 September:
        “On 11 July a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop.”

        How did Basu know the nozzle was “modified”? Modified from what? Was not the bottle and applicator specially made exclusively for the purpose of spraying the Skripal door handle? Who had modified it and why?

        Now Blogmirers know that the bottle is actually a counterfeit from Mr.Smell and the applicator is from a TevaJox spray but Basu is here stating very clearly that the Met also knows the nozzle is not as originally made… it has been ‘modified’! How did he know that?

        Why would the Russians use a ‘modified’ nozzle? What does Basu know about how the Russians make their spy gear? Did Basu know it was modified because the Met themselves had “modified” it?

      2. Paul asked : “Does the bottle play any role at all in the real story?”

        I tend to say no. The bottle was constructed in thought and desired before being found (during a second search in Rowley’s flat). Maybe it was a drug tool (sorry: “paraphernalia”), seized from Rowley’s apartment or from another drug addict. It is very possible that it played no role in the illness of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess.

  41. When I see a photo of a Salisbury police car, I check the registration details to see if it has been buried. I’ve just checked police car KV62 KVZ and this one is a puzzle.

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/04/19/4DEA838300000578-5915855-A_Boots_where_Mr_Rowley_picks_up_his_prescription_was_also_locke-a-63_1530729669717.jpg

    First I checked here:

    https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax

    Then I checked here:

    https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history

    The car is taxed but has no MOT history, although it should have been MOT tested on 24 September 2015, long before the Salisbury poisoning.

    How did they manage to tax it when it has no MOT?

  42. After the Amesbury incident how did Porton Down check that the bus siezed by the police was “free of nerve agent”? Did they swab every square inch of the bus with baby wipes and test them all ? I mean, if it had been Polonium 220 a geiger counter would have done the job. But how on earth, with all the nooks and crannies on a bus, did they declare it safe ? As far as I know it wasn’t sent to landfill. Of course, the simple answer is that the plods and PD did nothing at all as they knew there wasn’t any Novihoax in the first place. Anyone from Porton Down care to comment ?

  43. We all know how Met CT decontaminated P&B’s hotel room with a Q-tip – that was a bizarre tale! We also know that not a single picture has emerged from the bench between 4pm and 5pm – which is simply not a credible proposition. I think I can beat both of them for “that’s not possibleness”!

    On 14 July 2018, Basu said:
    “To date, more than 400 exhibits have been recovered as part of the Amesbury investigation, of which a significant number are potentially contaminated…”
    http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-statement-and-update-on-saliisbury-investigation-314362

    On 1 August, 2018, the ambulances and AA were added to the list of items to be checked, the following day charity bins were picked up.

    Nothing was ever found to be contaminated! The AA was cleared on 14 August:
    https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2018-08-14/wiltshire-air-ambulance-not-contaminated-after-novichok-poisoning/

    The OPCW report says this:
    “2. The TAV team deployed to the United Kingdom from 15 July to 18 July 2018 to collect biomedical samples and again on 13 August 2018 to obtain an additional environmental sample.”
    http://beta.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018/09/s-1671-2018%28e%29.pdf

    Note that on their first visit the OPCW did not obtain a single environmental sample! Nothing! Not one!! Their 13 August visit was to collect a sample from the perfume bottle. Why on earth did they not collect that on 15 July? What was the chain of custody for the bottle between 11 July (when it was found) and 13 August when OPCW took a sample?

    It turns out that in the whole of Amesbury, only 3 things were ever reported to have been contaminated: Dawn, Charlie and the fake perfume bottle. I cannot find a single report of any other person or object from Amesbury testing positive for Novichok. How likely is that?

    1. Novihoax has magical powers. It only sticks to what it’s required to stick to in order to maintain the illusion. I think the police should be looking for a magician.

      1. I mentioned some time ago that Paul Daniels should be under consideration.

        Oh! Wait!

        He’s dead.

        1. There is a Dead Poets Society. Is there a Dead Magicians Society? If so, it should clearly be investigated.

          1. Warning, this may contain nuts or satire or both!

            Newsflash. Secret group of magicians found dead. Novichok poisoning suspected. Russian spokesman states: “Nothing to do with us. Russians have no sense of humour”.

            British government response: “Typical Russian obfuscation. They are confusing magicians with comedians”.

            New Newsflash. Secret group of comedians found dead. Unidentified spokesman says: “Well, they weren’t funny anyway”.

            1. Meh, this is a case for Batman.

              If nothing else, Novichok is the chemical embodiment of The Riddler aka Novijoke.

                1. A drone flew in at Charlie’s window and deposited the bottle of Novijoke on the kitchen worktop.

              2. Sorry Eleanor , but frivolous use of the copyright term is punishable by poisoning by the aforesaid nerve agent (or related compound). Commissioner Gordon will be commissioning the Dynamic Duo to conduct the operation forthwith.

                2. ” … forthwith.”

                  Cripes, you are Sergei and I claim my fiver.

                  Awaiting the Operation Forthwith team, even as my trembling fingers mistype these words.

                  (Novijoke: great, innit. So close that it’s barely a pun. Although I really did think of it me’self, I now find that someone on t’internet thought of it more than a year before I did (sigh).)

                    1. Then you’ll never know that your intentionally-numbered namesake crashed at Watkins Glen :~)

                3. I know EiiR is the Queen but who is DiiR? Is this Princess Diana speaking to us from the other side?

    2. It’s been mentioned before but worth repeating because the urgency to check from secondary contamination was not present at the time Novichok was identified (3 days longer than the Skripal case) ……

      Sam Hobson who spent the night with Dawn and Charlie, was present when Dawn was put in the ambulance, went with Charlie for his medication and something to eat, and phoned for the ambulance when Charlie became ill ….. wasn’t checked out for two weeks (just like the duck feed boys)

      The reality was there was no need to.

      Sam is familiar with bad drug trips and Charlie was behaving differently than anything he had seen before, Sam thought it might have been a gas leak so he opened all the windows, the gas to the block of flats was later turned off

      1. It would seem the urgency was never there. When Novichok was said to have been identified, it took a further 4 weeks before the ambulance was sent for tests. How many people had been in the ambulance by then?

      2. Anonymous, you said : “Sam thought it might have been a gas leak so he opened all the windows, the gas to the block of flats was later turned off”
        May I ask for a source ? Google doesn’t help me. Thanks in advance.

        1. Try this:
          Residents living near Muggleton Road said they were initially told the evacuation was down to a gas leak.

          ‘I was told on the Saturday around half-six in the evening that there was a gas leak and to close my windows. Nothing else was ever mentioned to us after that,’ LeeAnn Brady said. ‘But I haven’t seen any British Gas vans anywhere.’

          ‘My friend messaged me and said she was told gas leak I said what, when there’s no British Gas present.

          ‘Police were knocking doors asking people if they had anywhere to stay the other night as it was a gas leak.’

          ‘We were just eating our dinner and all these emergency vehicles turned up. They were putting on these green suits and we thought it was the gas as our electricity was turned off as well.’

          All from:
          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5915855/Major-incident-declared-amid-fears-two-people-exposed-unknown-substance.html

          [Duckduckgo is your friend!]

        2. “People thought it was a gas leak at first. Now we don’t know what to think. It’s very worrying. My son plays out here on the green. First Salisbury, now this.”
          Amesbury police
          Police guard the entrance to Muggleton Road Credit: Matt Dunham /PA

          College student Chloe Edwards described seeing police cars, fire engines and people in “green suits” on Saturday night.

          “We saw everything,” the 17 year-old, who lives near the cordoned-off flat, said. “We were just eating our dinner and all these emergency vehicles turned up.

          “They were putting on these green suits and we thought it was the gas as our electricity was turned off as well.”

          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/novichok-poisoning-amesbury-couple-comas-contact-nerve-agent/

          1. Thanks, Paul and Anonymous. I assume that Anonymous conjectured from these sources that Sam Hobson believed the gas leak story. OK, it is plausible.

              1. So its a Novigas Incident now. Them nasty Russians how dare they.
                Did Sergeant Baily turn cooker off at 47 CMR after entering and get
                funny eyes.

              2. Anonymous, you said “No Sam instigated the gas leak story”.
                Well, the sources that you and Paul indicated do not say that Sam Hobson believed the rumor of the gas leak, let alone that he launched it…

          1. No offence/offense taken – we both learnt/learned something!

            It’s the old ‘two countries separated by a common language’ thing.

  44. Distasteful, but I’d like people to consider the investigative resources of the police in this current murder prosecution, and contrast that to the Skripal disclosures:

    “More than 11,000 hours of footage was obtained from 211 cameras. Footage was played of Nicholson buying a soft drink, cider and cigarettes in a Tesco store at 9am on 25 July last year, the day he allegedly killed Lucy.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/26/lucy-mchugh-trial-told-she-looked-like-she-was-asleep

  45. Is this true? PMs Questions today 26.06.19 Theresa referring Murdering Salisbury People
    in reference Russia Attacking UK and Jeremy Corbin backing Russia.
    Has this been quoted wrong or has Theresa let something slip?
    Dawn Sturgess is only person who lost life as far as I know.

    1. Speaking about Corbyn, May said:

      “Let’s just look at some of the relationships that the Rt Hon Gentleman supports. When people were killed in Salisbury, his sympathies were with Russia. When terrorists were killing our people, his sympathies were with the IRA. And in the recent tanker attacks in the Gulf, his sympathies were with Iran. He never backs Britain and he should never be Prime Minister.”

      May is not a good orator and does not always get her facts right. I suspect this is simply a case of her caring more about trying to attack Corbyn, than getting her facts right.

        1. Nobody. It was not a perfect choice of words by Mayhem but without looking for a discussion about grammar, ‘people’ can be singular or plural. It would be correct to ask: ‘How many people were killed in Salisbury?’ – the answer is still ‘one’.

        2. @ Anonymous 3

          Quote: Who else was killed besides Dawn?

          Reply: The Rt. Hon. [MVP] Mrs. T. Ruth

      2. If you never research the subject yourself – to the extent of trying to reliably understand the content of the briefings (indoctrination – though I’m not apologising for that evil harridan) that she gets, then, at best, she is reciting from memory what she’s been given as barbs to launch at her opposite number.

        She speaks as well as she dances.

  46. “The highest concentration of the agent used against Sergei and Yulia Skripal was found on their front door.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43577987

    How could that be?

    The highest amount of concentration must have been on the car door handle.

    According to the ludicrous narrative the front door handle is where the Novichok was smeared by the assassins.

    Straight after touching the front door handle to close and lock it, Sergei or Yulia then touched the car door handle(s) transferring a high dose of Novichok onto them. They should have remained untouched thereafter unless there is some dead vehicle recovery chap that we haven’t been told about.

    The Front Door Handle however is lucky to have any traces left on it after more than two weeks when it was tested, dozens of people going in and out the rain and snow would have diluted the concentration by far more than the pristine car door handle, that is where the highest concentration should have been, the next highest would be the back door handle.

    When Bailey went to the house at midnight, his colleages who were there at 5 pm didn’t think to knock or try the door handle to see if anyone inside had been poisoned.

    It’s only when intrepid Bailey arrives (according to Mi7’s Mark Urban) that he tried the front door handle, thus picking up a considerable dose on his gloved hand, it was locked so he went around the back, possible contaminating the side gate but then grabbing the back door handle before proceeding to break in.

    It was urgent to break in at midnight but it hadn’t been 7 hours earlier at 5pm. And it was down to Bailey on overtime to deal with it because Mi5/6 don’t work Sundays and no one else was available.

    The next highest concentration you would expect is the car park ticket machine and then the bread that Sergei shared with the children.

    Somewhere down the line, very much after the glasses, menus, knives and forks in Zizzis and the Mill or is that the Mill and Zizzis? And everything that Bailey contaminated in the Skripal home Is the front door handle which had been denuded of its Novichok over weeks of constant use and the persistent elements.

    It’s Nonsense Chuck or is that Novichok

  47. July 10 2018, 12:00am,
    The Times

    “A heavy dose of the nerve agent… is highly likely to have come from a vessel containing the leftovers from the assassination attempt on a Russian former spy, Scotland Yard said yesterday.

    Dawn Sturgess, 44, died on Sunday and her boyfriend Charlie Rowley, 45, is in critical condition in hospital after they apparently picked up a container of novichok in Salisbury, Wiltshire.

    They are thought to have found a vessel dumped by alleged Russian assassins in Queen Elizabeth Gardens, a park close to where Sergei Skripal, a former spy, and his daughter Yulia collapsed in March after coming into contact with the nerve agent.”
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dead-mother-dawn-sturgess-and-boyfriend-charlie-rowley-had-handled-novichok-vial-t63r8skzc

    The case was solved!

    The Times continued:

    “The heaviest concentration of the nerve agent was found on the couple’s hands, according to sources. Despite a massive search, counterterrorism officers and local police had not located the container, which is widely speculated to be some kind of glass vial…”

    Now that is odd… in the final story, it was Charlie’s hands but Dawn’s wrists and how a ‘massive’ search had not found a bottle in Charlie’s kitchen will never make any sense but was the Met working up a different idea that failed and the perfume bottle was their only remaining option? With the benefit of hindsight, the perfume bottle was a disaster because Charlie destroyed the story that it was the same bottle from 4 March and that it was found in QEG.

    1. In Charlie’s kitchen 10th July (10 days after the incident, 2 days after Dawn’s death)

      “Sarge what are we looking for again?”

      “A small receptacle, probably glass, maybe disguised as a consumer item like perfume or something”

      “Could this be it?” pointing to perfume bottle with unusual throat spray nozzle bunged on top resting on a kitchen worktop in a pool of oily stuff.

      “No”

      “But sir it looks like it has been freshly opened, see the box and unusually thick plastic wrapper is in this bin”

      “No laddie we are looking for a Russian item that one is French”

      “It could be a counterfeit sir”

      “You may have a point, well spotted, lets come back tomorrow and bring a counterfeit super recogniser with us”

      11 July, Fake Perfume Bottle containing highly pure Novichok found in Charlie’s kitchen

      1. Bailey at the scene WHEN the bench couple were sprayed with Incapcitant, that was not the plan nor could it be written into the narrative, the original plan was for the door handles of the CAR to be primary source but Bailey had no reason to have been touching those so the house door handle was invented. Only the car door handles could have given Yulia and Sergei a similar dose at the same time. Bailey getting dosed spoilt that plan. (NB In reality the house and car door handles never had Incapacitant nor Nerve Agent on them)

        Fake perfume was meant to be found in QEG but Charlie having no memory of it however he knew he didn’t wear his coat when he visited the park (it was too hot) as far as Charlie was concerned he must have “found” the item when he was wearing his coat and most probably Treasure Hunting, it could not be QEG but it might be a favourite bin of his.

        Like the door handle, the bin was a very bad mistake to go with, the bin was watched over by a Council High Definition Camera, to get to the bin Charlie would have to pass several more Council HD cameras. But there is no evidence of Charlie retrieving the package from that bin.

        1. In fact the car door handle contain another secret.

          If ( in plan B) only one car door handle was contaminated, the driver’s side. (Lets assume Sergei locked up the house and drove the car)

          Meaning with the forced error created by Bailey’s cock up (switching from car door handles to front door handle) It meant Yulia didn’t get a dose until Sergei had spread the Novichok onto the: Car outside handle > car inside handle > Steering wheel > car controls .

          In the forced new “reality” when did Yulia get contaminated and by what dose? Were the results of the degree of contamination of the car door handles ever released? Of course not! For the simple reason no narrative could explain the results.

        2. “Bailey at the scene WHEN the bench couple were sprayed with Incapcitant”,

          If you are right, Bailey must have seen the person (or drone) who did the spraying.

          1. Blunderbuss said : “If you are right, Bailey must have seen the person (or drone) who did the spraying.”
            This could be the reason why he was so long re-educated away from his colleagues.

        3. Can anyone clarify the assertion that the charity bin where Charlie Rowley is said to have found the perfume bottle is covered by CCTV? ie is this verifiably the case?
          If so, has the footage ever been reviewed or released?

  48. An interesting thing about all the comments re: Dawn and Charly is the apparently uncritical acceptance of the “Bottle of Doorhandles in unopened packaging found in Charly’s kitchen after D and C were taken to hospital for D having dabbed herself with Doorhandle from in the package (and then apparently repackaged the doorhandle to display specs — and specs that appeared to have the doorhandle impossible to atomise from the bottle — probably specially modified for safety –), which was the government’s “Option Two” cooked narrative for the Dawn and Charly Case, equivalent to the “Perfume-Bottled Door” story of the Skripals’ Case (where the dosage was massive enough it downed the Skripals in mere hours, even, somehow, maybe by government magic, without producing any rash on Yulia or Sergei…).

    Skepticism is dead? Or it has just gone the way of Critical Thinking (which the government seems to have in “protective custody” too, behind a wall of approved information releases)?

    Or is The Blogmire Discussion hitting a wall?

        1. New-hire Evangelista is masquerading as the retired Evangelista, and DiiR is a fake DiiR. I assure you all that I’m the real one, for I possess a genuine fake bottle of novijoked door handles. Believe. Never question.

    2. Evangelista,
      One thing is clear: regardless of whether Dawn sprayed her wrists with the perfume bottle’s content or not, it could not have been Novichok. If the bottle had contained Novichok, Dawn would have died within seconds, as she would have inhaled nerve agent particles sprayed under her nose. Charlie would have died within minutes, because he was in the same room as, according to the story he tells, he saw Dawn spraying perfume on her wrists.

      So it is clear by definition that there had been no Novichok in the Amesbury case. (No Novichok in the Salisbury case either, but that was another story.)

      Given Charlie’s substance-abuse track record, I think that the most likely cause of Charlie’s and Dawn’s illness was drugs, perhaps a rogue batch of drugs.

      1. When I first read Evangelista’s post, I knew you would be along to reply. Is it a new hire? The other Evangelista used to write very long posts in English.

        1. It’s a bit of a curate’s egg isn’t it, they like bits of the Hoax but not other parts.

          So; No to Nerve Agent, No to Door Handle but Yes to Skripals on the bench with Yulia with Reddish Brown Hair, Sandy Blonde, Blonde or White depending how you see colours.

          And No to Charlie Innocently finding the perfume and instead Yes to he knows damn well what happened and he now has a hold over HMG knowing that they lied along with their poodles in Porton Down, the OPCW and police.

          Not just Charlie but all his cuckooing friends know Amesbury Novichok was a Hoax and the brighter one’s on the junkie bandwagon know for certain it was just a bad batch of drugs.

          Or is it only Dawn and Charlie got ill with the bad batch of drugs and the rest of the gang were immune or Charlie wouldn’t share his stash. And Charlie can’t remember the bad batch of drugs and neither can his mates for some unstated reason. I bet a newspaper would pay a lot of money for that story – HMG Lies About Novichok, Here Is The Proof

          But why then does Charlie want Russia’s help in exposing the Hoax? He is perfectly capable of doing an interview and spilling the beans and set himself up for life.

          Evidence and logic have never been the strengths of the Trolls that reside here with the objective of spreading confusion and distraction.

          1. Posts like that really do clear the air. It can’t be a batch of bad drugs because nobody else was affected – if it had been “a batch of bad drugs” I am sure the list of Novihoax victims in Amesbury would be longer than two.

            Charlie doesn’t actually know what happened – he woke up in hospital to learn that Dawn was dead and he was told a bottle of Novihoax had been found in his kitchen! But nothing and nobody else was affected… so what was it?

            Were Charlie and Dawn selected targets and something was planted in Charlie’s flat? Whatever it was that killed Dawn, it does not seem to have left Charlie’s flat, as even The Met are not trying to pretend it was found anywhere else. Compare with Salisbury – tables, cars, ambulances, bench, etc. etc..

            1. The police knew from the start it was not a nerve agent. Charlie left SDH on 20 July but it wasn’t until 1 August that:
              “Novichok: Ambulances to undergo ‘precautionary’ tests”
              https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-45036062

              On the same day at 5pm, WAA was shut down and the following day, 2 August, the bins from behind the charity shop were collected.

              How was that even remotely possible? The police waited more than a month to check items for a nerve agent?

          2. Anon 1972, Rob has already been in trouble because of posts unnecessarily incriminating individuals. We should be catious.

          3. “And No to Charlie Innocently finding the perfume and instead Yes to he knows damn well what happened and he now has a hold over HMG knowing that they lied along with their poodles in Porton Down, the OPCW and police.”

            Anonymous aka Peter Beswick,
            I am not sure I understood all of your points. With regard to the above quote of yours, I would like to clarify that I do not claim and do not think that Charlie “knows damn well what happened.” His memories were vague when he woke up after sedation and the government, this is the police or special services, did their best to inculcate Charlie with their narrative. For outside observers, it is hard to sort out as to what really made Charlie and Dawn ill. I suggested drugs because, given Charlie’s track record, it looks like the most likely cause.

            However, despite all this smoke and mirrors, it is crystal clear that the story of the perfume bottle filled with Novichok CANNOT be true. If the perfume spraying [somewhere Charlie mentioned spraying with aftershave] had indeed taken place in the morning of 30 June, the liquid in the perfume bottle could not have been Novichok. When a woman sprays perfume on her wrists, the spray is very close to her nose; she has to inhale it. Inhaling a nerve agent causes death within seconds. So, if Dawn had sprayed Novichok under her nose, she would have been dead within seconds. Charlie would have been dead within minutes, because he was in the same room, according to the story he tells.

            This is enough to debunk the tale of the Novichok perfume bottle. Add to this the “fact” that the perfume bottle was found on the kitchen table one week after the Novichok “diagnosis” had been “made.” I guess I do not need to explain how incredible the timing is.

            1. “[Matthew] Rowley, 47, said yesterday: ‘All I know, all Charles has said so far, is that it was a perfume bottle or an aftershave bottle, and they picked it up in a park, and they sprayed themselves with it.

              ‘I’m going to talk to Charles later, and I’m trying my best to get the truth out of him about where he got it from, where it came from, what make it was.

              ‘It was nine days before they got ill that they picked it up.”
              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961781/Female-assassin-carried-perfume-bottle-containing-Novichok.html

              That was 17 July; six days after the Met had found “a small glass bottle” and four days after they had announced their discovery… and only seven days before Charlie’s TV interview in which he described the box and wrapper.

              Aftershave was not mentioned again.

        2. Highly likely a new hire from the same nest of curates’ rotten eggs. By the way, just to clarify, I’m not the other Anon-333 but another – aka DiiR.

    3. “Or is The Blogmire Discussion hitting a wall?”

      I think we hit a wall some time ago but our enthusiasm is undimmed.

  50. What has emerged today?

    Well, tomorrow will be the 26 June, between then and before 10am on the 30th Dawn was poisoned by something.

    The blame has been put on the Russians and a perfume bottle by HMG

    But the public have no evidence of that.

    So we speculate.

    Speculation

    Charlie did not wear his coat during the hot summer days, he thought he discovered the “perfume” in his coat pocket

    HMG hid that fact.

    It was wrapped in thick plastic (unlike perfume)

    HMG hid that fact

    The MSM had the “perfume” found in Queen Elizabeth Gardens.

    That is undoubtedly untrue but strenuously supported by the police for several months and huge amounts taxpayers money and inconvenience to Salisbury residents.

    So the question is, and the CCTV has the answer for the police, when was Charlie wearing his coat?

    64 High Definition Council Cameras in Salisbury and hundreds more private ones. There is no CCTV evidence (made available to the public) that the camera overlooking the Charity Shop bin is where Charlie recovered the package from. It would have certainly been recorded, the car park where the camera is situated and the pub / charity shop in question where it was thought (eventually) to have been found was well lit.

    After Charlie’s memory indicated it may have been that bin where he “found” it the police ignored that information and concentrated on QEG.

    Conclusion

    Charlie’s memory is better than Gisli Gudjonsson’s teachings might imply.

    He didn’t find it in the bin, it was planted on him when he was drunk / high and had his coat with him.

    The same people that scripted the Salisbury balls up were allowed a second chance

    Result

    No more confidence in the government, police, justice system and desperate misery for Dawn’s parents and Charlie because they are lied to by the people paid to look after them

  51. Nothing adds up !
    How could the red transit van NOT have traces of Novichok ?

    Quote : THE driver of a red van seized by cops for Novichok tests is terrified the deadly nerve agent could now be in his house.
    Ben Milsom, 36, gave victim Charlie Rowley a lift only hours before he was rushed to hospital.
    The van is being tested at Porton Down but Ben had already cleared out clutter by Charlie’s seat.
    Ben said: “Charlie was in the middle front seat. I’m not sure if he brought anything into the van because I wasn’t looking.”
    A few days later on the Tuesday, Ben sold the van for £1,600 to a local builder from Durrington – where Dawn’s parents live.
    That evening the police revealed that Charlie and Dawn had become infected with Novichok.
    He wants police to fetch it from his hallway — but they told him to hang on to it until the van results came back.
    Ben, of Amesbury, Wilts, said: “I’m really worried there is something in that pile of stuff.
    “I’ve told the police and the health authority about it but they have just told me not to touch it and leave it there.
    “When we came to sell the van I just swept everything out of the cab and put in a pile in the house.
    “There was all sorts of things like rubbish, fag butts, cd cases. I didn’t pay much attention to it, I just gathered it all together and stuck it in a pile.
    “It wasn’t until the police got in touch and said they wanted to test the van that I started worrying.
    “And after what happened to Dawn I just started freaking out.
    “I’ve been on the phone to the police and they said they would test the van first and if there was any traces of Novichok then they would come and take it away.”
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6737751/red-van-novichok-fears/

    Let the story sink in for a while.
    The trip in the red Transit was AFTER Dawn was brought to hospital !
    If Charlie´s perfume story is right, his hands were soaked with Novichok when he was in the Transit.
    Precisely this suspicion had prompted the police to close Boots pharmacy and the Baptist Church for weeks.
    Still, the police were not interested in the things Charlie had left behind in the Transit.

    Did Ben Milsom mentioned that he was tested on Novichok ? NO !

    But Neil Basu told us on July 8 :
    As the investigation progresses, we continue to build on our understanding of their movements, which is key to us establishing when and where Dawn and Charlie were contaminated.
    Our focus and priority at this time is to indentify and locate any container that we believe may be the source of the contamination.
    As part of this, detectives had identified a red Ford Transit van that Charlie travelled in as a passenger on Saturday, prior to falling ill.
    Yesterday, the military assisted us with transporting the van from a location in Amesbury to the Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down. There scientists will carry out tests on the vehicle.
    This has been done both as a precautionary measure and to assist investigators in piecing together the facts behind this dreadful incident.
    Three other men, who were also in the van that day, have been identified and contacted by police. None of them are showing any signs of having been exposed to the nerve agent or feeling unwell, and are being screened as a precaution.
    http://news.met.police.uk/news/further-statement-on-investigation-into-incident-in-amesbury-and-salisbury-313688

    In the red Ford Transit van were four persons :
    Charlie, Sam Hobson, Ben Milsom and another one (could be Craig Pattenden or Josh Harris).
    Neither of them mentioned that he was tested on Novichok (except Charlie, of course).

    So we have the same facts as with the Skripals: The police claim the persons involved were tested, but the McCourts, Sgt Tracey Holloway and PC Alex Collins said they have not been tested.
    And the same with the people who were with Dawn and Charlie.
    And we now know the police was not even interested in Charlie´s belongings left in the Transit !

    But it gets worse !
    Neil Basu was not even able to tell the truth about how many persons were in the Transit.

    On the same July 8 he made another statement :
    “You may also be aware that we recovered the bus upon which they travelled on Friday night, 29 June, as well as a red Transit van that Charlie travelled in on Saturday 30 June.
    “Tests on the bus have shown no trace of the nerve agent. The van is still undergoing examination, but four other men who had been in the van prior to its seizure by police have all been contacted and preliminary tests show that they are clear and have no symptoms.
    “Officers have also identified and spoken to a number of people who we know were with Dawn and Charlie before they became ill.
    “Clearly, everyone Dawn and Charlie were in contact with prior to them falling ill is a focus for our inquiry and the more we know about their exact movements, the better.
    http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-from-assistant-commissioner-neil-basu-national-lead-for-counter-terrorism-policing-in-the-uk-313952

    Note : „ four other men who had been in the van“ versus „three other men, who were also in the van that day,…“
    Note also that Basu confirmed that there were „a number of people who we know were with Dawn and Charlie before they became ill“.

    But the new Guardian article that sparked the discussion wants us to believe that Dawn and Charlie spent a lonely weekend…

    1. The van was used to take them into town on the 29th, they got the bus back, the Novbolloks was opened the morning of the 30th

      1. How could Charlie function after sniffing and rubbing a military Nerve Agent into his skin for over 8 hours?

        Going shopping for his methadone, going for a BBQ, getting stuff for Dawn in hospital, saying his prayers.

        What about the coppers who put Charlie in the ambulance wearing no protective gear or Sam who had spent the day before, night, morning and and then time with his child before returning and seeing Dawn put in the ambulance, went on the shopping and BBQ trip , then was strangled by Charlie and rang for an ambulance?

        Sam wasn’t checked out for Novichok nor was his child when it was discovered that is what killed Dawn.

        At some point you have to say enough or buy into the BS and become a casualty.

    2. It does add up – but only if your assume HMG and The Met are lying and that there never was any nerve agent of any sort; then it all makes sense. Why waste resources testing people you already know are absolutely fine?

      I am trying to work out if they are more arrogant than stupid, or whether their stupidity trumps their arrogance… it is a very close call either way.

      I wonder what Dixon of Dock Green would have made of it all… The PM, The Met, The Foreign Secretary all lying and the police involved in a total sham to maintain a hoax.

    3. Liane, Do we know when Charlie was in the red transit on 30th. Until I read your post, I thought the red van trip was only Friday (going to Salisbury). I cannot find the red van in any of the Saturday timelines but as you have noted, Basu certainly did say Charlie was in the van on Saturday.

      I thought it was odd that Charlie didn’t mention the perfume to Sam but now here we have another group of people Charlie knew and still no mention of the perfume. I am really struggling to believe that nobody asked Charlie what Dawn had done after she got up and before she fell ill… I would have expected it to be the #1 topic of conversation. As soon as Charlie mentioned the thick ‘bacon pack’ wrap and Dawn collapsing 15 minutes later, surely somebody would have put 2 and 2 together.

      As things stand, it seems Charlie didn’t mention the strangely wrapped perfume to: Sam, Charlie’s other friends in then red van, plus anyone at Boots or the hog roast, the paramedics and the police. Some of them must have asked him what happened. When you add in the fact that the police, who were looking for a container, somehow managed to miss a very strange looking container in Charlie’s kitchen (and the unusual wrapping in the bin)…

      The whole ‘perfume’ story from Charlie not being able to remember where he found it; to it sitting in his house while a ‘massive’ police search is underway; to the ludicrous white plastic replica… none it is rings true.

  52. I finding it very hard computing what problem is regarding spending on
    Royal Household with Tax Payers Money?
    Is Royal bit a clue?
    Tax Payers money has been blown on Brexit disaster.
    Transport Minister blown it on Ferry Comp with no Ships.
    Salisbury Hoax.
    Amesbury Hoax.
    Emergency Vehicles plus a Table.
    Hero Bailey House.
    Skripal House plus a Roof.

    Am I missing a Royal problem regarding taxpayers money?
    I remember Mr Skripal leaving hospital SDH when Royal Wedding on.
    No Media….How well planned was that Folks.

    God Help Us!

  53. Its Highly Likely that Charlie and Dawn were targeted because they fitted the required profile, it could well have been another couple but their profile was ideal;

    History of bin diving
    Homeless
    Alcohol / Drug problems
    A female requirement

    Homeless drunks in Salisbury were a sub class and treated as such by the police, whoever set them up knew this, possibly from this incident

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16303215.man-died-after-police-left-him-in-public-toilet-to-sober-up/

    Its the same toilets as where the Novichok was found, the Highly Critical Inquest took place in June 2018 (the incident occurred Feb 2017)

    The police were set up just as much as the Dawn, Charlie and the “Skripals”.

    One thing is for certain the perfume bottle did not find its way into Charlie’s flat by accident, it was meticulously planned; the targeted victims, the timings and the news management.

    What wasn’t thought through was the logistics of getting the “Novichok” from the assassins in a thick plastic sealed wrapper into the possession of Charlie with a credible explanation.

    Psychopaths don’t have to be highly intelligent, often they are but it doesn’t matter to them, they think they are cleverer than everyone else regardless of their intellect. Explaining to them that they are thick reinforces their lowly opinions of everyone else.

    I have little doubt that Dawn was not meant to die, to the psychopaths it did not matter though and they would take advantage of that development by having her life support turned off at an opportune time, as it turned out the England team going through to the extremely successful Russian World Cup Semi Finals.

    Did Putin decide when Dawn’s life support should be turned off?

    1. HMG left the door open with the possibility that there was a rogue Russian (non-State) element involved, possibly one or a group of Sergei’s ex-colleagues who he so brazenly betrayed.

      When Putin offered his help in investigating that aspect HMG firmly slammed that door in Putin’s face.

      Why did HMG close down that avenue of inquiry, May gave Putin 1 day to come up with the culprit before closing it down

      One year on and HMG (via their officers in the security services, police and CPS) are no closer to charging anyone with the death of Dawn.

      They say they know where the poison came from
      They say they know who brought it to Salisbury

      But they can’t charge anyone because of lack of evidence.

    2. I guess in the respective manual tricking people into spraying themselves with fake perfume would be murder but fake drugs would not as people are not supposed to take them anyway.

      1. If we assume that Charles Rowley speaks the truth the poison was hid as perfume, if we assume he was pressed to say what he did the insistence of the thick wrapper – that disconnects Amesbury from the attack on the Skripals – means what?

          1. Why say it was Novichok then?

            Charlie was not pressed to say the thick plastic reference he volunteered it as an aside.

            His original statement and only public statement until the recently was he had difficulty removing the wrapper so he used a kitchen knife. The thick “like a packet of bacon” was revealed on this blog but not repeated in any MSM until the guardian a few days ago.

            Tptb did not want that info coming out. Charlie did not realise the significance of it when he first described the thick plastic packaging.

            1. Yet the wrapper has never been mentioned by anyone other than Charlie – Met CT didn’t see fit to include it in their official images of the counterfeit Nina Ricci item. It ought surely to have been found in the kitchen bin along with the battered almost-a-box.

              A shrewd move, on the part of Met CT, if the outer wrap was not what most people might recognise as cellophane.

              1. It was an indicator of several 5hings including the hazard status of its contents but the two that caused problems to the Official Narrative are;

                1) It was not used in Salisbury and

                2) The Salisbury recepticle could still be at large with possibly more containers dotted about to create maximum terror

              2. And there were the few articles that mentioned “the bottle had been specially manufactured” and the 3d bottle shown.

                Which somehow makes me think the “perfume” bottle was a bottle produced by 3d plotter you can use in lots of copy shops.

            2. More like shrink wrap possibly?

              Vacuum sealing.

              No spy would have a vacuum sealer on them never mind a machine for plastic wrapping.

              I am puzzled as to why Charlie gave Dawn the – Oily – non smelling perfume.

              What perfume is oily and what perfume doesn’t smell?

              If he’s being straight then he thought it was perfume because of the title on the box.

              But after faffing about with the nozzle and so on surely he ‘d know that perfume it wasn’t.

              So why give it to Dawn?

              Interestingly Dawn was said to have damage to her face and hands.

              That suggests whatever she did with the liquid she might have put it on both palms and rubbed it in her face.

              I’ve heard of spray on moisturiser but not an oily one as it won’t go through the pores.

              Very strange thing to do with perfume on both palms and face.

              1. Maybe, after she’d sprayed her wrists, she sat watching telly with her head cupped in her hands. That might explain how the oily substance transferred from her hands/wrists to her face, especially if she raised her wrists to her face to smell the light scent (which in itself is a nonsense because eau de parfum (edp) is a formulation nearer to full strength scent/parfum than eau de toilette (edt)).

                She did have a sore head, before the huge head ache, after all. Poor Dawn.

                Blimey, the very idea of watching morning TV with a head like that …

        2. anidea said : “the insistence of the thick wrapper – that disconnects Amesbury from the attack on the Skripals – means what?”

          That Charlie Rowley was very confused and that he didn’t understand very well what was expected from him.

  54. Just a couple of ideas for people to think about.

    1) Why was Dawn targeted? Was it because there were drug dealers “cuckooing” in Charlie’s flat? Maybe she told them to get out and they wanted revenge.

    2) Is there a link between Porton Down and drug dealing in Salisbury? Maybe a rogue employee was using Porton Down’s facilities to manufacture illegal drugs. When this was discovered, the Novihoax scam was invented to lead the police on a wild goose chase.

    1. 1. No. If that was the case they would not have also targeted Charles Rowley and lose the flat altogether.
      And they would not have used “Novichok”. I think the stuff detected is genuine as this find completely destroyed the government’s narrative and there was no renewed anti-Russia hype after Dawn died. Maybe in the media but not by government/diplomats.

      2. No. There would not be “county lines” in this case. I guess, Porton Down is high security. That does not mean, a Porton Down chemist might not have a private laboratory. The risk, I assume, lies in the high number of highly qualified chemists in the area.

      So – warning: absolute speculation – if a well connected cabale related to Orbis, government and media decided a) they needed another anti-Russian push b) Skripal had become a liability and c) they had to test a project of “population information control”, then there “highly likely” would be a government connected “chemist friend” who may have connections to the Salisbury drug scene.

      From my experience in the UK: British police does have a kind of “managed control” of the drug scenes, meaning there are a few “police approved” local dealers who know everybody and inform the police if “foreign, non approved” drugs are coming in. No, users like Charles Rowley or Dawn Sturgess would not be trusted in these roles. The dealer I knew was the most organized guy I ever encountered.

      The emphasis on “only a government laboratory could have done this” is highly suspicious.

      1. Also suspicious is the media information that “the bottle and packaging was not produced by Nina Ricci” but especially for “Novichok”, the incomplete/wrong images of the packaging and the 3D model of the bottle.

        My guess is the bottle could have been traced – not to Russia – and it was a message – “we know where the “Novichok” came from, we know the recipe and we can replicate this to be a real danger” – ie blackmail of the British government.

        Yes, it may have been connected to the Trump May, Trump – Putin meeting
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trump-salisbury-poisoning-putin-novichok-nerve-agent-nato-boris-johnson-a8452821.html

  55. When you thought they have reached the bottom of the barrel …….

    The Real IRA were involved in the poisonings of the Skripals according to Fake Social Media postings promulgated by the Russians.

    “The details were disclosed following an investigation by Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Laboratory (DFRLab).”

    “DFRLab’s Ben Nimmo told The Irish Times he was not surprised a Russian operation had opened “a new front” targeting Anglo-Irish relations.

    “The combination of Brexit, a hard border and all the rest of it is an open wound. If you are a hostile foreign actor, why would you not stick your finger in it?” he said.”

    https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/06/25/news/fake-arlene-foster-email-used-by-russians-to-spread-brexit-disinformation–1648802/

    1. Nimmo is an Integrity Initiative compulsive liar for the Cause. We must bear in mind MI56’s track record in blaming the IRA (and also using them when ‘necessary’) over their dirty ops. They use many other orgs. for similar games worldwide.

      1. Yeah, it is a joke. Conservatives targeted British – Irish relations by threatening no deal Brexit.

        Arlene Fosters position is the impossible
        https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/arlene-foster-does-not-rule-out-dup-signing-up-to-a-softer-brexit-1.3846041

        She insists on the Union and the referendum result, but might agree on a deal without the backstop (which would keep Northern Ireland in the EU in the case of no agreement) which the EU does not offer so opts for a No Deal inner Irish border that would renew “the Troubles”.
        Russia does not need fake news targeting Anglo-Irish relations if there is Arlene Foster.

            1. I realise that, anidea, but this is the DUP we’re talking about. Their position will only be adjusted or modified if it suits their agenda.

              The Irish Times must have been aware of the date, when they published that article, whether or not it’s a spoof.

    2. Keep an open mind as to who the real perpetrators might be.

      The Atlantic Council is known to have links to Integrity Initiative.

  57. I do not know if these two extracts have already been compared on BlogMire

    1° Matt Burgess, “The science behind why novichok isn’t a huge public health risk”, Wired, 10 juillet 2018

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/amesbury-novichok-news-salisbury-poisoning

    [QUOTE] Neil Basu, the Met’s assistant commissioner and leader of counter-terrorism operations, has said the force believes the novichok was in a vessel or container when the couple found it. Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, has suggested the poison could have been in something “innocuous” such as a “perfume bottle or other luxury toiletry”. [QUOTE]

    2° Metropolitan Police, “UPDATE: Source of nerve agent contamination identified”, 13 July 2018

    http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-source-of-nerve-agent-contamination-identified-314322

    [QUOTE] On Wednesday, 11 July, a small bottle was recovered during searches of Charlie Rowley’s house in Amesbury. [/QUOTE]

    1. Usually police does not give exact description of crime scenes, so they will notice if someone describes the scene using details only perpetrators can know about.

      2. In fact, it seems that Matt Burgess was wrong when he said that “Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, has suggested the poison could have been in something “innocuous” such as a “perfume bottle” ”
        Here :
        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44733873
        Frank Gardner says :
        [QUOTE]
        Investigators, led by the Met Police’s counter-terrorism detectives, are working on the basis that the pair – now critically ill from Novichok poisoning – handled a contaminated item that caught their interest.
        They need to find it.
        The item – or possibly items – are thought to be something found and touched by the pair, possibly something as innocuous as a perfume bottle or other luxury toiletry.
        [/QUOTE]

        In any case, the perfume bottle was conjectured and “needed” as soon as 6 July 2018.

        1. If you add to the BBC article the following:
          “The couple fighting for their lives after being poisoned with a nerve agent may have been contaminated after “dumpster diving” for items in skips and outside charity shops, according to a friend.

          Counter terrorism police are scouring the homes of Dawn Sturgess, 44, and Charlie Rowley, 45, amid fears they stumbled on a container holding the military-grade Novichok poison after it was discarded by a Russian hit squad.”
          https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/amesbury-poisoning-couple-may-have-been-contaminated-while-dumpster-diving-a3880936.html

          then you pretty much have the whole story… on 6 July!

          – Container discarded by the assassins
          – Item caught THEIR interest – possibly perfume bottle
          – Police ‘scouring’ Dawn and Charlie’s flats for the container (pity they didn’t look in Charlie’s kitchen)
          – QEG cordoned off

          They were nearly there… but then, Charlie destroyed the story and we were looking at a dumpster instead.

          All the elements of the final story can be found in those 2 articles – all except for Charlie saying it was not QEG!

          1. “then you pretty much have the whole story… on 6 July!”
            Yes, Paul !
            In fact, rereading this page, I see that the prescience of Frank Garner had already been noted by Brendan on 13 Juny. My excuses for repeating his remark without an acknowledgement.

  58. Some more thoughts on the cuckooing.
    I want to remind you what Dawn posted on her FB on June 22, 2018 :
    “Nothing brings a group of a..holes together faster than something that´s none of their f.cking business.”

    Than on June 23, 2018, one week before she was poisoned, she retweeted this :
    https://ibb.co/Rb5My7G

    Dawn´s family and friends described her as exactly that :
    A good heart, helped much, trusted much, gave much.
    So why did she post that ? Someone has disappointed her. Most probably Charlie.
    Was Dawn angry that Charlie was in bad company ?
    Did people settle down in his flat, who animated him into drugs ?

    Wiltshire police on July 1, 2018 :
    Are you being controlled by drugs gangs? Speak out. We’ll delete them from your lives. Call 101 now.
    https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/1013656351204143104

    Amesbury police on July 2, 2018 :
    We are issuing an urgent warning to drug users in the south of Wiltshire after two people fell seriously ill in #Amesbury over the weekend. https://twitter.com/AmesburyCPT/status/1013765856403312640

    Wiltshire police on July 3, 2018 :
    Drug dealers are taking over homes of vulnerable people to use as a base to deal drugs. It’s known as cuckooing and it could be happening near you. Call 101. https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/1014086933943934976

    CountyLines drugs gangs blight the lives of vulnerable people. Help us help them. Report any suspicions to 101.
    https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/1014162233897766913

    Doesn´t the tweets look like the police had reasons to believe Charlie was a victim of cuckooing ?

    Wiltshire police on July 4, 2018 :
    Det Sgt Eirin Martin, from Salisbury CID, said: “At this stage we believe the two patients have fallen ill after using from a contaminated batch of drugs, possibly heroin or crack cocaine. https://web.archive.org/web/20180704154845/https://www.wiltshire.police.uk/article/2902/Warning-over-contaminated-drugs-after-two-fall-ill-in-Amesbury

    Than there was a strange tweet on July 13, 2018 (which could be bogus) :
    “The #Novichok case is far from closed @wiltshirepolice We ask you to investigate a man by the name of Wallet Brown. One of the well known Heroin Dealers in Salisbury. He may have information on who sold the heroin in glass bottles to Charlie and Dawn.“
    https://twitter.com/russia_watch/status/1017909786195759105

    On July 15, 2018 the SKWAWKBOX website reported an online Telegraph article by Martin Evans, CRIME CORRESPONDENT :
    “Novichok poisoning: Did Skripal attackers use Charlie Rowley’s flat as a safe house?”
    Quote : The assassins who tried to kill Sergei Skripal earlier this year, may have used Charlie Rowley’s empty flat to prepare for the hit, experts now believe.
    Philip Ingram, a former intelligence and security officer, who has studied chemical warfare, said it was possible the would-be assassins had used the vacant building to prepare for the attack and had left the glass bottle when they departed.
    „The operatives who administered the actual Novichok to the Skripal’s door handle, would have needed somewhere close by to get into their protective clothing and unwrap the Novichok.
    This was a new estate which would not have had residents at the time so it would have been a good place to avoid prying eyes while they made their final preparations. It is perfectly possible that if they were using this flat as a safe house, something got left behind that was unfortunately discovered by Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley when he moved in.”

    The article was quickly taken down and replaced by :
    “Novichok poisoning: Nerve agent found in perfume bottle, says victim’s brother.”
    But the article is saved here :
    https://skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Novichok-poisoning-Did-Skripal-attackers-use-Charlie-Rowleys-flat-as-a-safe-house.pdf

    Something happened in Charlie´s flat that we are not told.
    Why did he have strangulation marks on his neck?

    1. The only thing that links the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents is Novichok which we now know wasn’t present in either locations (but was half way between the two of them at Porton Down).

      And the Porton Down Novichok differs from other Novichoks in that it has a time delay built in and only has a 20% kill rate, the same as the chemical used in the Moscow Theatre Siege.

    2. Thanks Liane,
      Impressive detail as usual.
      If “cuckooing” was in fact going on, then this brings even more questions to the surface.

      So many, that I might need to think for a while.
      1) Was Charlie’s place the base-camp for the first Salisbury “attack”?
      2) Did TPTB use it later, when a second stage to the Terror campaign was needed?
      3) Was Charlie an informer/runner for DSB?
      4) Boots, Amesbury – What was going on there? Methadone prescription for Charlie filled there?
      5) Charlie seemed very unsure as to the charity bin location at the beginning of his recollections.
      He is now more definitive. Has time made him more sure, or is he being persuaded that “this is the way it was”.
      6) Three days to find a container on a kitchen worktop? Did it have to found because Charlie regained consciousness?

      1. Duncan – I’ll try to answer your questions:

        1. No. The staged attack was orchestrated by MI56, and at that time there was no intention of getting two random locals involved. The failure of MI56’s plan caused all the odd events that followed – a hurried, clumsy attempt at covering up what really took place at the bench and at The Mill.

        2. I think they took advantage of a situation as it was unfolding, and used it as a further excuse to blame Russia.

        3. Unlikely, but Charlie could well have known DSB through his drug offence. Was it him or his friend who was imprisoned for a while over stealing a bus? Can’t remember off hand, but I wouldn’t be surprised if DSB had crossed tracks with both of them, and maybe Dawn too. People like them tend to be well-known to the local police.

        4. Who knows? Quite possible.

        5. Charlie had been persuaded to say what they’d taught him to say, as a deal: “Say this, and we won’t charge you with xxx”. They could pin any petty offence on him if they needed to. However, privately he’s still unsure about where that ‘perfume’ came from.

        6. Yes. It would explain the timing.

    3. Has anyone managed to discover when Charlie actually received the keys and became the official tenant of the flat in Amesbury? Or when he actually moved in? Anything or nothing might have been going on in any of the empty units in the new-build development that includes Muggleton Road.

    4. The Telegraph article is tantalising but if there was any connection (that the police knew of) between the Salisbury ‘event’ and Charlie’s flat, then they were remarkably slow off the mark. It took them four days to declare Amesbury as a ‘major incident’ and as we know, the lab tests on Dawn and Charlie took longer than after Salisbury.

      It also takes a leap of faith to believe that Muggleton Road would not have had security in operation in March 2018. We know Charlie was not occupying the flat in March but it must have been almost complete – a building site that is almost complete is a prime target for thieves, many brand new appliances and fittings…. How could a gang of 4 to 6 people possibly have been using the flat and not be noticed.

      1. Paul, not for a second I would believe what Ingram tells us.
        But it is an example how certain circles desperately tried to construct a connection between Salisbury and Amesbury.
        No fairy tale was dumb enough…

      1. Blunderbuss, we come across Philip Ingram on numerous occasions in the Skripal case. He was and is very vocal, especially on Twitter.
        I see him in the orbit of Hamish DG, Dan Kaszeta, Luke Harding and the other storytellers.

        2. AdrianKent in a July 2018 reply to Tim Heywood says this about Ingram:

          Philip Ingram (@PhilipIngMBE) chimed in on a recent thread – informing me that the persistence was why they (I’m assuming he meant the Russians) decided to use Novichoks. When it came to the delayed collapse story he told me that this was answered in his, Kaszeta’s or Hamish DBG’s threads. It’s a tactic that certainly Kaszeta has deployed more than once – feign weariness when questions get tricky and then refer people to tweets they’re too busy or tired to dig out themselves. I told Ingram that I thought this was a little lame and pointed him to this site by way of example of good practice.

          The upshot?

          Dan Kaszeta blocked me.

          Ingram is an Integrity Initiative stooge – liars with an agenda, all of them. Let’s not forget that the II is still active and busily pulling the strings of the MSM, most likely still being discreetly financed by UKG. No doubt they are hoping that their exposure will be quietly forgotten, and that includes here on this forum.

          I for one, will never forget that UK ‘democracy’ is being thoroughly compromised by this unscrupulous outfit. Where are the mass protests?

      1. I know. He is a friend of Pitbulls…
        His large grey Caravan is indeed at the location.
        But unfortunately I´ve no inside knowledge of the Salisbury drug scene.

        1. Liane,

          We should not jump to conclusions because, as you say, the tweet might be bogus.

          Who is Pitbull?

    8. Initially the police seemed sure that Charlie and Dawn had been poisoned by contaminated hard drugs. But they may have only believed that because of their backgrounds – Charlie’s history as an addict and the fact that Dawn lived in a homeless hostel. Typical junkie profile, they might have thought, even though both had fairly stable lives.

      The police may also have found evidence of drugs in the flat, but that could have been from someone else who was partying there the night before.

      I don’t see how Charlie and Dawn could both have taken or knowingly handled enough drugs that would cause an overdose. Not only did Dawn not take ‘drugs’ (meaning hard drugs like opioids), she had absolutely no tolerance for them.

      Nobody hid Dawn’s problems with alcohol, but nobody reported any other recent drug abuse by her. Charlie, Sam Hobbs and her mother Christine (citing the autopsy report) said she didn’t do drugs. And she reportedly told Charlie she would leave him if he ever took them again.

      So even if we imagine that Charlie was involved in dealing the stuff, you would expect him to keep it well away from Dawn.

      I can think of only one realistic scenario where they both could have overdosed on class A drugs. That is if somebody else left some extremely potent substance lying around – like fentanyl – and then Charlie and Dawn both handled it without knowing.

      1. Brendan, do you think that the bottle was a drug tool used by a “cuckooer” ? I posted a link to a site (The Marihuana Source”) where there is a picture of a drug tool similar to the perfume bottle (with applicator) found in Charlie Rowley’s apartment.

        1. Inquirer, the similarity of that device to the Salisbury ‘Novichok’ applicator does look remarkable. But in that website it is used only with cannabis leaves, so no overdose is possible.
          Pure speculation, but maybe the police found that cooking equipment and thought it was for heroin or cocaine (as they initially reported)? Or is it also possible to use the same ‘tincture’ technique with hard drugs?

          1. “Or is it also possible to use the same ‘tincture’ technique with hard drugs?” Good question, Brendan. Unfortunately, I have no idea.

          2. As I said to Milda, it is also possible that the bottle was a drug tool, but was not the cause of the illness of Charlie and Dawn.

    9. The speed with which the Telegraph article was completely re-written is interesting.

      The original Telegraph article was published at 7:01pm on 15 July 2018. That version (by Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent) was archived at 7:76pm:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20180715184611/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/15/novichok-poisoning-did-skripal-attackers-use-charlie-rowleys/

      The Wayback Machine uses UTC (=GMT) for its records, which means the archived copy (18:46:11) was captured at 7:46pm (BST) – only 45 minutes after it was first published.

      One hour and 3 minutes later, the second version (attributed to ‘Telegraph Reporters’) was archived and in it, all the ‘safe house’ details had been edited out:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20180715194918/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/15/novichok-poisoning-did-skripal-attackers-use-charlie-rowleys/

      The original story was published at 7:01pm and by 8:49pm it had been completely re-written. There must be something in it that somebody really didn’t want published.

      1. So what was it that caused the problem? If you strip out the guff about using Charlie’s flat as a safe house, you are left with one thing – a team of 4-6 people were involved. At that time The Met had not revealed any details of who they thought was involved but they had had 3 months to go through all the CCTV etc. and ought to have known those details, even if they didn’t say anything.

        Ingram said the team “would have carried out a ‘pattern of life’ study” but that is obvious nonsense as the hit took place on a day when Yulia was present… so Sergei was not doing his ‘normal Sunday things’.

        Did The Met not want questions about what the 4-6 persons team was really doing?

      2. Paul,

        You note that the original Telegraph story was published at 7:01pm but by 8:49pm it had been completely re-written. You also say that “there must be something in it that somebody really didn’t want published.” It would seem so. But what was it?

        In the original, we find this:

        “Initially it was thought Mr Rowley, 45, and Ms Sturgess, 44, had been contaminated when they picked up the container after finding it hidden under a bush in a park in the centre of Salisbury on the afternoon of Friday 30 June.

        But experts now believe that is unlikely given the length of time it took the couple to fall ill, with Ms Sturgess not taken to hospital until the following morning and Mr Rowley admitted more than eight hours later.”

        http://web.archive.org/web/20180715184611/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/15/novichok-poisoning-did-skripal-attackers-use-charlie-rowleys/

        But in the rewrite, we find this:

        “One theory is that Mr Rowley, 45, and Ms Sturgess, 44, had been contaminated when they picked up the container after finding it hidden under a bush in a park in the centre of Salisbury on the afternoon of Friday 30 June.”

        http://web.archive.org/web/20180715194918/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/15/novichok-poisoning-did-skripal-attackers-use-charlie-rowleys/

        So that’s interesting. In the original, the idea of Charlie and/or Dawn discovering the bottle in Queen Elizabeth Gardens is pretty much dismissed by “experts” because of the time that it took them to become contaminated. Yet in the rewrite it is back in and very much alive and kicking as a theory. Clearly the “experts” in the 7:01pm piece were not considered good enough “experts” by the 8:49pm writers. But why?

        The clue is in the link on the earlier piece. It links to another Telegraph piece, published the previous day, which stated the following:

        “Scotland Yard also warned that searches for any other potential sites or sources of contamination are expected to continue for several weeks, if not months…
        It is thought they may have come across it in Queen Elizabeth Gardens, close to the centre of Salisbury, before catching a bus to Mr Rowley’s home, where they collapsed within hours of each other. The large park has since been sealed off by police.”
        http://web.archive.org/web/20180714160942/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/14/salisburys-fears-continue-police-admit-could-novichok/

        Queen Elizabeth Gardens was sealed off on 4th July (with searches being done by unprotected police officers) and reopened on 24th August. So when the Telegraph printed their initial piece on 15th July saying it had been “initially thought that they were contaminated there” but “experts now believe that is unlikely,” that would have called into question why the park was still shut. Furthermore, the whole thrust of that first piece on 15th July — that the bottle was possibly found at the flat — would have made the two month search of Queen Elizabeth Gardens preposterous.

        Yet the two month search of Queen Elizabeth Gardens continued, despite there being no reason for it whatsoever. In fact, in an interview for ITV just 11 days after the Telegraph piece, Charlie specifically ruled out QEG as one of the places where he might have found it. Presumably he must have ruled this out soon after he awoke. And yet the search continued for another month:

        https://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-26/novichok-charlie-rowley-amesbury-nerve-agent-exclusive/

        And so my speculation is this: The Telegraph piece made the QEG palaver seem absurd. There they were with their “experts” ruling out QEG, and yet police had closed off QEG 11 days before. Allowing the piece to stand as it was would have raised the following question: “What on earth are you doing searching QEG when ‘experts’ have ruled it out”? Of course the irony is that they continued searching in those sealed off areas even though Charlie’s own testimony ruled it out. Why?

        But I must say one other thing. Watching Charlie’s testimony again on the ITV interview has convinced me of one thing. I understand that he is/was a drug user and has a fuzzy mind, but nevertheless he does two contradictory, but in my opinion very revealing things in the interview. On the one hand, he is so confused that he can’t even narrow down the location where he found the bottle to a town (could have been Salisbury; could have been Amesbury). But on the other hand, he is clear headed enough to categorically rule out the areas where the police were searching (ie. QEG). The picture we therefore have is therefore one of a man who finds something unexpected, but highly distinctive in his pocket, who has absolutely no recollection of where he did find it, but has absolute certainty that he didn’t find it in specific locations. The simplest explanation for this is as follows: he didn’t pick it up; it was planted on him.

        1. That’s an excellent piece of sleuthing Mr Slane! As to why the police carried on the search of QEG after Charlie ruled it out – I think you answered that. The search of QEG was fake and the police knew it was a sham. The implication of that is that the entire ‘search’ was an act of fiction. The only reason you search somewhere you know you will not find anything, is that you are not really looking for what you said you were looking for in the first place… or you are looking for something else entirely.

          As to the bottle being planted on Charlie: I have for some while thought that was one of two possible scenarios. The fact Charlie does not remember ‘finding’ it certainly points to the fact that he did not find it. In which case it was either planted on him, or it never existed. By all accounts, Charlie and Dawn’s Friday was a bit of a ‘bender’. If the police told Charlie that they had found the bottle in his kitchen and the wrapper in his bin, what is he going to say? That would also explain why the paramedics who attended Dawn didn’t discover the use of perfume when they asked Charlie what had happened after Dawn woke up on the Saturday and also why Charlie did not mention the perfume to Sam.

          1. (The perfume bottle) “was either planted on him, or it never existed”.

            I’m inclined to agree but, in that case, what really happened to Dawn and Charlie?

            1. If the bottle was planted on Charlie, then Dawn was being targeted as Charlie would not have used the perfume. I cannot think of any good reason for Dawn (alone) being a target.

              If the bottle did not exist then I believe Dawn suffered an anaphylactic shock to ‘something’ on Saturday morning. She was not breathing for 30 minutes before she was removed from Charlie’s flat, so was ‘dead’ before she arrived at SDH and was kept ‘alive’ for a few days on machines. She never regained consciousness. It could have been an allergic reaction to anything.

        2. On 21 July, the Telegraph was still saying (in another article) that Queen Elizabeth Gardens was “where Mr Rowley and Miss Sturgess are believed to have stumbled across the glass bottle”, but that Charlie could not remember that happening:

          “It is thought he has not yet been able to remember where he and Miss Sturgess found the container, (…)”
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/21/novichok-victim-charlie-rowley-became-contaminated-breaking/

          The “not yet” part is strange because his brother Matthew said at least five days earlier that Charlie had said he picked it up in a park:

          “Mr Rowley, 47, said yesterday: ‘All I know, all Charles has said so far, is that it was a perfume bottle or an aftershave bottle, and they picked it up in a park, and they sprayed themselves with it.”
          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961781/Female-assassin-carried-perfume-bottle-containing-Novichok.html

          But by 24 July, Charlie completely ruled out QEG in his first appearance on ITV :
          “I’m pretty sure. No. I’m 100% sure it wasn’t in the park”
          https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-novichok-charlie-rowley-interview-12974102

          This is therefore how Charlie’s recollection of the perfume bottle evolved last July:
          – 16 July: Says that he (or Dawn) picked it up in a park. (Daily Mail)
          – 21 July: Cannot remember where he found it. (Telegraph )
          – 24 July: Still cannot remember but he rules out QEG (ITV interview)
          – 26 July: Again rules that out QEG and says he found it in a charity shop bin (ITV interview)

          1. So why did Charlie tell his brother Matthew within days of regaining consciousness that he picked the bottle up in a park? It could be that he got the idea from the Met, if what he said in his first ITV appearance is true:

            “(…) when I came round weeks after, and the police mentioned a bottle they’d found in the flat, (…) I was in complete shock when they told me it was Novichok.”

            [Interviewer:] You’re in hospital…they tell you it was Novichok…what did you think?

            It was all too much to take on board. Too much. I was told too much all at once . It was too much to take on board.”

            In light of that, it’s worth noting what was reported in the Telegraph article on 21 July:

            ” it is understood that police are anxious that Charlie Rowley’s account of what happened should not be compromised by discussing it with other people.”

            What they really meant is that Charlie’s account should not be compromised by anything except the Met’s version of what happened.

            1. I think that is indeed what it means. Why Charlie needed to go to a safehouse is anybody’s guess but once there:
              “[police] banned him from watching television and from reading newspapers, his brother revealed today.”
              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5980433/Salisbury-Novichok-victim-Charlie-Rowleys-brother-says-kept-police-safe-house.html

              Obviously they were trying to make sure Charlie only had a single version of the story and once they thought he had it, they immediately put him on ITV to give an interview, with no ‘hard’ questions.

              1. Doesn’t all this safe house stuff remind you of the sort of isolated or secure location such as are used for security debriefings etc? Or, in Charlie’s case, briefing and brainwashing.

                He probably still doesn’t know there the Premier Jour packet came from, he possibly even knows that it wasn’t really the sort of bin find he’d have been interested in but he also realises that hazy days and fuzzy heads can be a potent combination. Truth is, he’s not meant to remember the real detail and has little option but to adopt the position suggested by those supervised the aftermath of Novichock II.

              2. There is a part of Charlie’s interview where he almost spills the beans:

                “I do have a memory of her spraying it on her wrists and rubbing them together.
                I guess that’s how she applied it and became ill.”
                https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-victim-ill-within-15-minutes-says-partner-charlie-rowley

                Those two statements contradict each other. Having just described exactly how she applied it Charlie continues with a ‘guess’. I think Charlie’s memory of what he saw is probably a false memory but it allows him to put the story together in his own mind.

                Why did Charlie need to say he had ‘a memory’? Why did he not simply say: “Dawn sprayed it on her wrists and rubbed them together”? I think the reason is that Charlie himself was only 50% sure and without saying he had a memory, he thought people might not believe his words… because he didn’t actually believe them himself.

                In the DM article I linked above, Charlie said: “I’m trapped in a room and on a lot of medication.” Might that ‘medication’ have included mind-altering drugs?

            2. I understand that Charlie’s only recollection is he carried around the plastic wrapped package in his coat pocket for a couple or three days.

              He didn’t where a coat jacket on the 29th in the video in the shop.

              His recollection is he found it on the 27th, this is strange because it suggests he remembers when he found it and not where. this to me sound like a false memory generated from him knowing he carried around for 2 or 3 days and worked backwards.

              During that time it was very warm and likely he only wore his jacket in the evenings / night.

              He has strong memories of finding many “treasures” in that particular bin, some quite valuable, it’s a natural follow on to him that he may have found it in the bin.

              If he did find it in that bin it would be recorded by the CCTV camera overlooking it.

              But the most interesting thing to me is he is adamant that he did not find it in QEG, which suggests to me that he was resisting having that memory planted. If he doesn’t know where he found it he doesn’t know.

              1. I think the reason it was so vital that QEG was the place was that they have CCTV recordings of P&B passing through the Lush House car park adjacent to QEG.

                The police sere desperate to find something in QEG and shut it down for months.

                Another route from the train station to where P&B were videoed in Fisherton St is through QEG and through or past Lush House car park.

                1. “He didn’t where a coat jacket on the 29th in the video in the shop.”

                  It was as hot on Friday 29 June as it had been on Wednesday 27, so there’s a good chance that Charlie was wearing the same sort of clothing on both days. In fact, it had been very hot all week and they seem to have been keeping themselves hydrated with alcohol (I could be wrong, not all the drinks an off-licence sells is booze; however they did have sore heads on the Saturday morning, after the partying of the previous evening).

                  https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/uk/salisbury/historic?month=6&year=2018

                2. Anon, I agree. I replied to Robs post a bit further down.
                  “Under a bush in a park” was stated too quickly in the narrative.
                  Why were Amesbury parks eliminated so quickly.
                  Well, P&B did not, and could not have been there, so attention was diverted to QEG to keep the Salisbury terror level high.
                  Too bad there was not a larger supply of City Hotel swabs.

                  1. Interestingly, “under a bush” survived the Telegraph re-write, so someone was very keen to push that idea. Having a theory about exactly where in the park the bottle was found, before it had even been established that it was found ANYWHERE in the park, does appear rather premature. It would seem that someone was very keen that ultimately QEG was where it was going to be said to have been found… so no need to search any parks in Amesbury.

                    But because Charlie was sure it was not QEG, some two and a bit weeks later they decided they had better remove the bins from the charity shop – when they already knew that was a complete red-herring.

                    This has been their Achilles heel ever since – they cannot find any way to tie the bottle to events of 4 March. QEG was what they wanted to use but Charlie (unintentionally) put a stop to that. The whole Met story is just lies upon lies.

              2. That makes total sense. Presumably Charlie’s treasure hunts were planned activities – he didn’t expect to ‘fall over’ stuff, he went to look for it. He may therefore know that his trip to QEG was not a treasure hunt and that he was neither looking for, nor found anything that day. Also, QEG is not likely to be one of Charlie’s ‘hunting’ places – what could he expect to find there? So he knows (for sure) that he didn’t find the bottle in QEG.

                But the police have told him that they found the bottle in his kitchen… so he must have found it somewhere. Charlie knows it wasn’t QEG but he thinks (or he knows) that he went treasure hunting on 27th and that must have been when he found it… he can’t actually remember finding it but that must have been WHEN it was and he must have put it in his pocket and then he forgot about it for a few days.

                  1. This is the Amesbury Incident equivalent of the belated contact with the duck feed boys: tidying up the loose ends for damage limitation purposes.

                    1. Indeed it is but when did the police first hear that (perhaps) Charlie had found the bottle in those bins and why did they not rush to remove the possibly ‘contaminated’ bins?

                      Charlie’s dumpster diving was first disclosed on 6 July:

                      “Today a long-time friend of the pair said the pair would often trawl through bins in search of items discarded by charity shops.

                      Justin Ling, 47, who was among fellow residents evacuated from the hostel where mother-of-three Ms Sturgess lives and who has known Mr Rowley for fifteen years, said: “They used to go dumpster diving outside of charity shops, going through the stuff they used to chuck out. ”
                      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/amesbury-poisoning-couple-may-have-been-contaminated-while-dumpster-diving-a3880936.html

        3. Rob,

          The phrase “under a bush in a park” seems very specific, even more so when Salisbury is mentioned. Why not Lord’s Walk or Amesbury Park?
          If two people collapse in Amesbury, then why would Salisbury public places immediately come under scrutiny.
          Were any of the non Salisbury locations searched?
          Yes, Boots and Charlie’s home.
          TPTB seemed to focus in on the “hidden under a bush in a park” theory too quickly, and then having arrived at that theory were able to eliminate Amesbury park locations.

          Using simple uncluttered thinking, if the two GRU agents were relying on public transport, and did not get a taxi to Amesbury, then to keep the story together, Charlie must have “found it” in a place the agents could have accessed in the March trip.

          1. ““under a bush in a park” seems very specific … ”

            It seems very non-specific to me, unless Salisbury has parks with very few bushes in them.

            As with all the reporting, and there seeming to be broken lines of communication in a multi-agency investigation, it all seemed no more than fubar until Dawn.actually.died.

            At times, being seen to do something has seemed important because it suggests that no effort is too small when the public are to be protected and, most importantly, are made to feel safe. Even in these days of cutbacks, were the park bins only emptied every three or four months, or litter only cleared quarterly? (Answer: more frequently than that, but maybe not frequently enough for a town that prides itself as a charming tourist attraction.)

            Whatever the reason for the police fingertip search of QEG, it cannot have been in the genuine hope of locating discarded Novichok.

            1. Elanor, if I was going to hide something, and I had the whole of Wiltshire to hide it in, including public libraries, railway stations, council buildings, hospitals,cinemas, shops, restaurants, public transport, bins, taxis, flower beds, hedges etc etc.

              Do you not think that UNDER A BUSH is quite specific?

              Especially as it was mentioned twice.

              1. And which bush is that, Duncan, you’d have to be pretty certain and sober to know which exactly which bush, not least because vegetation grows and changes the appearance of each and every bush etc?

                Or is this why the entire park had to rigorously finger-tipped, grass blade by grass blade? In case what had been foliage and growth had been pruned or mown in the interim.

                Not that I really disagree with you, in some ways. Yes, under a bush is quite specific, but only if a wild goose duck chase is on the quixotic agenda. Happy to agree to disagree, it’s only a quibble on my part.

                1. Eleanor,
                  Is there some part of this that I am failing to explain?
                  I a not describing a specific bush, I an highlighting the fact that HMG used that description.
                  Using that that description more than once.
                  It’s not about the the bush, its about the naming of the bush.

                  1. Absolutely not, Duncan, and I was wibbling because the bloomin’ PTP and their betimes nonsense is clearly driving me bonkers!

        4. Some things pointed out in this thread today support the idea that Rob was speculating about above – that the perfume bottle was planted on Charlie. Someone could have slipped it into his jacket pocket, ideally after a night when he had been drinking and also ‘treasure-hunting’.

          I assume that the best time for Charlie to snoop around in bins would be night time when nobody is watching. He would be wearing some sort of jacket at night, unlike during the daytime which was very warm at the end of last June.

          The reason he ruled out QEG and other places is probably because when he was there he wasn’t wearing the jacket he found the box in. Anyway, if he found a brand new sealed perfume bottle in the park, that would be so unusual that he would remember it.

          The next time he picked up the jacket, he would find the box in the pocket and he could not remember where he got it. But he would assume it was from a bin he’d looked into a couple of nights before. That’s like what he thought when he talked to the Guardian recently about rummaging in a charity shop bin on Wednesday 27 June 2018:

          “It was a proper honey hole. On that day there was nothing to my eye other than this perfume. I picked it up, put it my pocket and forgot about it for a little while. It stayed in my coat pocket.”

          Last year, however, when he talked to ITV on 26 July, he was still far from certain about where he got it:

          “It’s a possibility that I may have found it here.” he tells us at some bins outside the back of some shops in the centre, but he says “I don’t know, all I can say is a vague description of an area and this being one of them”

          The reason Charlie seems more certain in his recent Guardian interview could be that he can’t think of any other place the bottle could have come from – because he’s now certain that he could not have found it in QEG or any other location.

          However there is another possibility that Charlie would find hard to even imagine – that someone planted the perfume bottle in his pocket.

          1. Charlie’s July interview was while he was still fairly unwell, and his healing process is taking time. Sadly for him, some of the recovery may mean that he’ll recall something emotionally painful as part of the process.

            Brendan, my direct observation of dumpster diving is that it seems to happen not long after the shop closes: the rubbish had been put out, the staff have gone home and any good stuff may be gone if you leave it too late in the day. If you’ve ever seen the way that dealers pounce on the contents of a car boot, at a boot sale, well that’s what it’s like at ‘good’ skips or dumpsters. I’d further suggest that if collection day is a Thursday, then Wednesday would be the best time to dive because the bin would be full.

            As for Charlie’s coat and a long hot spell, it could be that Wednesday was the last time he’d had reason to wear it. After which, the coat and its minor treasure might not have been touched by him for several days – or it might have afforded someone the perfect opportunity to slip something into a pocket. Dawn might have even done this herself, who knows. The point continues to be that Charlie himself doesn’t really know. And I’ve previously said that it’s possible that Charlie’s jacket was an essential part of Charlie’s dumpster diving kit.

            This is just playing with ideas btw because I’m by no means sure that anything like this happened.

          2. If it was planted on Charlie, whoever did so must have expected him to give it to Dawn but he might not have done… he might even have lost it, or it might have fallen from his pocket. Then what?

            Also, when was the last time a man gave a bottle of perfume to a woman but opened it first? Maybe he handed it to Dawn, who couldn’t get the wrapper off and asked him to do it. But Charlie didn’t stop when he got the wrapper off, he opened the box as well. Is that what you would expect? Then he sees the bottle and applicator – at that point surely he would think he had better hand it over to Dawn… what do men know about putting applicators on perfume bottles?

            Then he spills some on himself and washes it off… really? If that had been me, it would have been wiped on my trousers. And while Charlie washes his hands, Dawn sprays herself with a contraption, the likes of which she cannot possibly have seen before! What sort of perfume spray has a long white plastic applicator?

            OK it explains how both of them got perfume on their skin but the whole story is, for want of a better word, ridiculous.

            And it leaves us wondering why Dawn was targeted. My money would be on the whole story being a work of fiction… and that the first Charlie heard about the bottle was when the police told him they had found it in his kitchen and asked him how it got there. If Charlie trusted the police at that point, why would he doubt it? Instead he would start wracking his brain trying to ‘remember’ what happened.

  59. Did Dawn Sturgess use drugs?

    1° Lizzie Dearden, “Amesbury novichok incident: Family of Dawn Sturgess ask public to ‘stop speculating’ about her death”, The Independent, 10 juillet 2018
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/amesbury-novichok-incident-dawn-sturgess-death-family-statement-investigation-poisoning-a8440071.html

    Note: Dawn Sturgess’s family complains that Dawn Sturgess (allegedly) has been blackened on the Internet, but says nothing about recent or past drug use by Dawn Sturgess. The only passage of the article on this subject is this: “Ms Sturgess’ friends have said she had struggled with alcohol dependency and taken drugs in the past.” Why cite (anonymous) friends of the family rather than the family itself?

    2° Holly Christodoulou, “Who was Dawn Sturgess, what has the Salisbury Novichok victim’s family said about her drug addiction, and how many kids does she have?”, The Sun, 22 novembre 2018,
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6729599/dawn-sturgess-salisbury-novichok-victim-family-drug-addiction-children-funeral/

    [QUOTE] They [= “A family friend] added: “She [= Dawn’s mother] feels that Dawn is not getting the same quality of treatment as the Skripals because of her background and the fact she’s an alcoholic. She’s seen as a nobody, really.”
    (…) The pal said: “(…) She started smoking weed and over the course of time she turned to harder drugs.”[/QUOTE]

    There is not a lot of insistence that Dawn Sturgess would have completely given up on drug use … The mother’s complaints about how the hospital treated Dawn contrasts with the complimentary certificate that the family ( in all spontaneity, certainly) awarded to the hospital:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/amesbury-novichok-incident-dawn-sturgess-death-family-statement-investigation-poisoning-a8440071.html

    3° Steven Morris et Caroline Bannock, “Novichok victim Dawn Sturgess’s parents tell of their anger and hurt “, The Guardian, 15 février 2019
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/15/novichok-victim-dawn-sturgess-parents-tell-of-their-anger-and-hurt

    [QUOTE]Caroline took huge comfort from the fact that no recreational drugs were found in her daughter’s bloodstream and no disease in her liver or other organs. “When they said it was purely because of the novichok it was a huge relief. She was innocent. It wasn’t her lifestyle that killed her.”[/QUOTE]

    As I already said, thist shows that The Powers That Be and Sturgess’s family had a common interest in minimizing the place of drugs in Dawn Sturgess’s life.

    1. Amebury Chemist where Charlie went to pick up his methadone shut for 4 months

      Car use by paramedic buried

      Helicopter taken out of service

      Same Hobson that stayed with Charlie the previous night, was present when Dawn was put in the ambulance “she did not look alive”, went with Charlie to the chemist and BBQ, had Charlie strangle him and called for the ambulance ………

      …… not checked out until two weeks later

      https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2723081/amesbury-boots-store-re-opening-today/

      1. Yes Anon, that seems to be one of the more interesting actions.
        There was speculation that Charlie might have “lifted” goods at Boots.
        Even some early thoughts that Boots was the location for the sealed perfume package.
        Most of that fell away because the container would have to be planted in order for someone later to steal it.
        That would risk someone making a legitimate attempt to buy it, if it was a displayed item.
        Then it have to be in the Boots stock, barcoded etc.

        Logic would then imply that the second Novichok box was never in Boots.
        So, indeed, why was the shop closed for decontamination?

  61. Novichok 2

    I have seen recent postings and just wanted to make sure that we are reporting facts, rather than “informed sources”.
    1) Is there an official toxicology report based on Dawn’s treatment or post mortem?
    2) What possible link can there be in the nerve agent supposedly applied to the door handle and the second “finding” of a sealed container that Charlie found?
    The second container found months later cannot have been the same one used in early March.
    It is reported the bins are emptied frequently, the 2 GRU agents were not filmed near them, and three months had passed.
    3) I think it was reported that the perfume bottle was found in Charlie’s house three days into the the police search.
    Found on a counter top, so in plain sight, even for the plod.
    I also think it was found on the day Charlie regained consciousness, so maybe that meant it “had to be found” to keep the HMG narrative in check, and tweak the terror level back to max, during the World Cup Finals.

    1. I do not believe there has been any official’ news from Dawn’s postmortem.

      SkyNews and SpireFM reported about the ”damage” to her hands and face and The Guardian reported her mother’s words regarding ‘no recreational drugs’ in her body.

      1. The more I think about damage to Dawn’s face and hands, the more I think that a (face) cream might be the culprit. Or a cream that produced an allergic reaction to something applied earlier.

        I’m loath to call such info ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’, these are all factoids or factlets imo.

  62. If the FSB used the bottle to import novichok, it would be an original, perfect, Chanel box, bottle and wrapping.
    Also have P&B got any hold baggage? Only one has something in his hand and that looks more like a coat.
    If they brought the bottle on as cabin baggage it should have been out of its wrapping in the clear plastic bag.
    If they had been stopped at the UK border they couldn’t claim the bought it airside in Moscow, as no airport duty free would have knock-off gear.
    Ergo, P&B didn’t bring the Nina Ricci box and bottle with them.

    1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5936919/Novichok-poisoning-probe-spreads-Swindon-police-seize-car.html

      Published: 07:59, 10 July 2018

      But Lorna Wilkinson, director of nursing and midwifery at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, warned he is ‘not out of the woods yet’.

      ‘Charlie is still very unwell and will continue to require specialist, round-the-clock care,’ she said.
      ‘We have seen a small but significant improvement in the condition of [Charlie]. He is in a critical but stable condition, and is now conscious.’

      From the time of the article, it would suggest Charlie regained consciousness before 10th July.

    2. No check-in luggage, only cabin luggage. Only a screw cap bottle full of one of the most lethal nerve agents in the world, that could have leaked due to air pressure fluctuations, killing everyone on board. Only an idiot would believe any of it.

  63. With regard to the Amesbury case, I would suggest that the official story of the perfume bottle is a mix of Charlie Rowley’s vague memories and TPTB’s fake scenario.

    Recently, on 13 June, our fellow Blogmirer Brendan came up with what I consider a great idea. See
    https://www.theblogmire.com/the-new-york-times-tries-to-get-itself-out-of-duckgate-using-a-spade/#comment-29111

    Brendan says:
    June 13, 2019 at 9:36 am
    …another strange coincidence is that the Met found the bottle within a day of Charlie regaining consciousness. They never said publicly whether he mentioned the bottle to them when he woke up or whether they found it themselves. Either way, it’s strange that they hadn’t already found it when it was there in clear sight – on Charlie’s kitchen worktop. They had missed it during a week-long search of the flat since the poison was identified as Novichok.

    …In the cases of both Charlie and Yulia, it looks as if the Met waited for the victims to wake up in order to see if they would contradict a story about where Novichok was discovered. Once there was no disagreement from the victims/witnesses, the updates to the narrative got the go-ahead.
    …………………………………………………..
    I disagree with Brendan over Yulia but I think it seems very plausible that the Met (or who have been handling the case) waited for Charlie to wake up before making decision on the perfume bottle as the “Novichok” container. I think the handlers learned a lesson from Yulia’s case: when she woke up and was able to talk the handlers discovered that her knowledge of March 4 developments was incompatible with the door-handle narrative (more about Yulia and Salisbury below).

    It is hard to say what exactly Charlie was able to recall when he woke up on 11 July. But after talking to him, the handlers of the case were sure that his knowledge would not contradict their idea about the perfume bottle as the “Novichok” container. It is likely that Charlie indeed had found a perfume box (he said so to Peter Beswick and he seems to be insisting that he had to tackle thick cellophane). But it might have been not a counterfeit Nina Ricci, but some other counterfeit. According to Elena Evdokimova, who is quoted in the Twitter account cited by our fellow Inquirer on June 23, 6:24 am, the 5.5 ml Nina Ricci counterfeit is on sale exclusively on one Russian website. (Of course, the real counterfeit Nina Ricci is preassembled with a perfume nozzle, it does NOT have a long spray nozzle which is yet to be installed on the bottle.) The exclusively Russian-offered perfume bottle fits the “Novichok” narrative.

    So, Charlie remembers that he had found a perfume box of a brand Dawn recognized. He remembers him cutting the thick cellophane with a knife. He remembers that Dawn sprayed the content of the bottle on her wrists. But it were the handlers of the Salisbury poisoning case who connected the innocent perfume episode with Charlie’s and Dawn’s falling ill and who inculcated Charlie with their narrative. Charlie’s doubts he expresses now may be significant as a reflection of his not being sure (or even being far from sure) that in late June 2018 things had developed in the way he was told they had.

    Now about Yulia and the door handle. As I wrote here back in March, my theory is that Petrov and Boshirov, being GRU servicemen, had a side job of couriers for Russian oligarchs or/and Mafiosi and delivered documents between Russia-based businesses and business owners residing in Europe. In order to frame GRU-serving, moonlighting couriers into the then-planned Skripal poisoning, the planners placed an order with the shady courier service and thus lured two couriers, who turned out to be Petrov and Boshirov, into Salisbury on March 3 and 4 (the fake client might have invented a reason to ask P&B to come for the second time). On March 4, the fake client asked P&B to meet him or his aide near the Shell gas station, in order to make P&B be filmed by the local CCTV camera (actually, one of the local CCTV cameras, as Rob found another one looking at the spot where P&B should have crossed the road if they had walked to the Skripal house. As they did not walk to the Skripal house, the second CCTV camera’s recording was not made public.) All this implies that the door-handle narrative had been pre-set before Sergei and Yulia were poisoned. Of course, few people knew about future developments.

    It’s hard to say whether the planners of the poisoning were sure that the Skripals would die – in fact, the Skripals could have died even though they had been poisoned with an incapacitant, not a nerve agent, as they could have chocked with their own tongues or vomit. It may be that the planners believed that even the Skripals would survive they, the Skripals, would be easily inculcated with the official narrative.

    However, when Yulia woke up and was able to talk to the Met (or whoever were questioning her), it turned out that the story of P&B smearing the door handle and Yulia’s knowledge of what she and her father had been doing on 4 March were incompatible. Some time ago Rob noticed that the India Avenue CCTV video was likely filmed in the morning of 4 March, not around 13 pm, because the recording depicts too much snow. Also, Anonymous (not sure who it was) noted that the police did not show the same camera’s video of the Skripals’ driving in the morning, when they were heading to the cemetery. So it may be that on 4 March the Skripals left home in the morning and did not return there. As we know, 1st March 2018 was late Alexander’s first birthday after his death back in July 2017. For instance, after visiting the cemetery, Sergei and Yulia might have gone places Alexander had especially liked or some special place which they three happily visited together in the past.

    If on 4 March Sergei and Yulia indeed left home only once, in the morning, then they could not have touched the door handle after P&B “poisoned” it around noon. Yulia and Sergei know that they did not return home. That’s why they are kept isolated.

    Then, how were they poisoned? Not long ago I posted here the Daily Mail article of early March 2018 where it was said that the investigators were considering two versions: 1) the Skripals’ drinks were spiked in the pub (The Mill); 2) the Skripals were sprayed with a substance on the street. Until recently, my theory was (2). But now I think that maybe it was (1).

    1. Milda, you say :
      “it were the handlers of the Salisbury poisoning case who connected the innocent perfume episode with Charlie’s and Dawn’s falling ill”
      Thus, we agree on a point : the bottle was not the cause of the illness of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess. Perhaps we could also agree on the real cause : drug use or perhaps passive contamination, and responsibility of the “cuckooers” ?

      1. Inquirer, I agree on both points: the perfume bottle was not the cause of Charlie’s and Dawn’s illness and the real cause was drug use.

        1. I have a nagging suspicion that the bottle found on the countertop was not the same bottle that Charlie handled and whose contents Dawn sprayed on herself. Similar kit, maybe, but different contents.

          Nothing to support this notion, it’s pure speculation on my part.

      2. According to information that was reported to be from Dawn’s autopsy, she had damage to her hands and face. Not neck and wrists, as might have been expected if a woman had been applying perfume – so I am told.

        This would also rule out a drug o/d – if a drug o/d had not already been ruled out, as Dawn was not a druggie according to everyone (including her son and mother) except one article that made an unsubstantiated claim that she did use drugs. Dawn was an alcoholic not a druggie. Charlie was the druggie.

          1. Also remember that when Charlie left SDH, he was taken first to a ‘safe house’. Why was that necessary? Who was trying to kill Charlie… with perfume? It would, however, have given TPTB ample opportunity to brainwash Charlie and make him think whatever they wanted him to think. And to (nearly) say, whatever they wanted him to say.

            Except somebody messed up the bit where he was supposed to remember where he found the bottle. Show him the bottle – tell him it was found in his kitchen… a bit more persuasion and he would be convinced. Give him a replica bottle and nozzle (rigged to drip when he tried to assemble it) ask him ‘how’ he put it together… it leaks (as planned) they ask him if the same thing had happened when he did it at home… they ask if he washed his hands… etc. etc..

            I believe that Charlie is quite genuine and believes what he has said… but that it had been planted there for him to repeat… which is why he can’t actually ‘remember’ the whole thing.

          2. Paul, you quoted the Guardian saying :
            “Caroline took huge comfort from the fact that no recreational drugs were found in her daughter’s bloodstream and no disease in her liver or other organs. “When they said it was purely because of the novichok it was a huge relief. She was innocent. It wasn’t her lifestyle that killed her.””
            Thus the family and The Powers That Be had a common interest in minimizing the place of drugs in Dawn Sturgess’s life. But, as I already said, Dawn Sturgess could have been passively contaminated. I assume you do not trust Porton Down on its word.

          3. Paul, the Guardian article you quoted (15 February 2019) seems typical Guardian strategy to me : act as if you were critical of the authorities by echoing the (actually irrelevant) complaints of nobodies, but pack that into a reinforcement of the official version. The Guardian used the same strategy in Rowley’s recent interview.

            1. I do not disagree at all. I was just pointing to what had been said. That is (as far as I know) the only place we have any information about the toxicology reports from Dawn’s autopsy. It is not guaranteed to be correct.

        2. Is it possible for contents of bottle being highly flammable. Was thinking if Dawn
          sprayed it on herself and then lit a cigarette any fumes could have ignited in a
          flash causing injuries hands and face (gas or zippo type lighter or match)
          I don’t know if Dawn smoked?
          If contents had an oily texture fumes wouldn’t evaporate as quickly would they?

  64. My whole reply to Anonymous doesn’t pass. I try the first part.

    Anonymous, I suggest the following scenario : the police is under pressure from Porton Down and feels that a Novichok version is wanted. Charlie Rowley feels that his self-exonerating explanations about the bottle will be easily accepted by the police if they make a Novichok story possible.

    1. And now the second part.

      The meeting between the Rowley brothers and the Russian embassy was arranged by The Mirror (if I recall it correctly). Charlie Rowley duly called BS what the embassy said to him. Which point of this scenario seems impossible to you ?

      (Got it. I had written BS in full letters. It’s Rowley’s word, not mine.)

      1. None of it sounds possible

        Would you use a drug addict and his cuckcooing cohorts to hold a already failed Hoax together?

        1. Does anyone believe that Porton Down can’t tell the difference netween a Nerve Agent and Fentanyl (or Opiod derivative)?

          Having said that, weaponised Fentanyl is currently known as an Incapacitant however Porton Down want its classification changed (in the science and legal community) to Nerve Agent or Central Nervous System – Acting Chemical.

          When Porton Down decided to prostitute their scientific principles for political favours they dug the hole that they are now in.

        2. Anonymous, you asked : “None of it sounds possible. Would you use a drug addict and his cuckcooing cohorts to hold a already failed Hoax together?”
          Why not ? Until now, it succeeded.

  65. Reflecting on Charlie Rowley’s Guardian piece where he expresses his frustration and anger at the authorities attitude to keeping him in the dark about the facts of the case.

    It may now be an opportune time to send an open letter to Johnson and Hunt and demand a promise to be more open and transparent if they become PM.

    For a start they could promise to explain how the Novichok could only have come from Russia and why they think its a Military Grade Nerve Agent when it’s designed to only take effect after a minimum of 3 hours to a maximum of 12 hours.

    Military Nerve Agents take seconds for symptoms to present when breathed in and minutes when contact is made through the skin. Charlie breathed it in and covered his hands with it. If it had been a Military Nerve Agent Charlie would be dead.

    If Johnson and / or Hunt can explain that then perhaps they deserve to be PM

  66. It was noted below that the bottle of perfume was found in Rowley’s apartment only during a second visit.
    Here :
    https://twitter.com/HisBlakeness/status/1038775104270999554
    David Jonathon Blake suggests it was an instrument for drug use:
    “I found this home-brew sublingual system for cannabis on the net. Look at the nozzle. So. We have the late Dawn and Charlie as Opioid users, and Charlie screwing the cap on the bottle ….”

    The picture comes from this page:
    https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-dope-dr-greenthumb-1-gallon-yield-per-bucket-test-grow.361286/

    The site rollitup desribes itself as “The Marijuana Source”.

    Comments welcome…

    1. Yes. The applicator makes no sense for perfume.

      It is “highly likely” that the Skripal as the Amesbury case was the result of Mafia operations.

      The official British line (as in the Litvinenko case) usually is “GRU – uses Russian mafia – is controlled by Putin” thereby avoiding to cooperate with Russian institutions that are fighting Russian organized crime. Actually Spain complained that Britain is not cooperating.
      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-oligarchs-russia-corruption-organised-crime-mafia-jose-grinda-a8399391.html

      And – as in Litvinenko case
      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45907655
      Skripal is connected to Spain.

      If I would wish to go full conspiracy I would say British security services are involved in Russian organised crime. I can pack Glushkov on top of this.

      1. And as Abramovich was denied a visa after the Skripal case you can pack Abramovich on top of it, too
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/16/litvinenko-investigating-abramovich-money-laundering-claims-court-told
        “In one of two witness statements given to British police, the Russian exile Boris Berezovsky said Litvinenko spent the last months of his life investigating Russian mafia activity in Spain. At the time, Litvinenko was working for Britain’s secret intelligence service, MI6, and for Spanish intelligence. The inquiry into Litvinenko’s death has heard that the former Russian spy began working for MI6 in 2003.”

        1. This of course is the pot calling the cattle black.

          But Russian “oligarch” Mafia wars are big business in London paying loads of lawyers, ex-Mi6 private investigators and maybe even a few politicians.

    2. I think Liane had a great idea in reminding us of the drug context of the Amesbury affair …

    3. I think the key part was this:
      “I use a Chloraseptic soar throat spray bottle, I like the extended nozzle to get each spray exactly where I want it.”

      The “Amesbury applicator” was supposed to make it look more ‘spy-like’ (a precision instrument) but at the same time it made it look less like a bottle of perfume. I have a very hard time believing that Dawn would have used it without a thought. Charlie said it didn’t smell like perfume; it was unusually wrapped and it didn’t look like perfume… but Dawn used it anyway?

        2. Recall that several papers said that Dawn Sturgess was not only an alcoholic but also a drugs addict. And, by the way, is it necessary that the “perfume bottle” played a role in the illness of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley ? An overdose could have another cause.

          1. The consensus amongst Dawn a friends and family is she did not touch drugs. One newspaper had a quote from Dawn vs mum saying she had an addiction to drugs but I took that to me prescribed antidepressants.

            There was another quote somewhere that said Dawn had dabbled with weed when she was younger.

            1. Well, even Dawn was no more a drug user, passive contamination, for example by fentanyl, exists (if I’m not wrong). In this case, the friends of Dawn and “cuckooers” of Charlie had an interest in having the police follow another trail, if they did not want to be held responsible for the death of Dawn Sturgess.

              2. It was speculated about the meaning of “they” in Charlie Rowley’s words : “They killed Dawn” : the Russians ? the British cops ? Perhaps there is a third possibility : the “cuckooers” ?

                1. Didn’t Charlie’s brother tell a reporter, “He should never have got himself mixed up with that lot.”?
                  Unfortunately the intrepid reporter didn’t think of asking who “that lot” were.

              3. So Charlie knows that the police are onto his fentanyl caper but they fabricated the evidence at Porton Down, the High Court and OPCW to strengthen and continue the Salisbury Hoax.

                Charlie’s drug dealings now being protected by HMG with HMG fully confident that the only existing fentanyl/perfume bottle/nozzle kit was found in Charlie’s flat. No more are going to turn up anywhere

                Charlie has got away with it but decides to brazen it out by going to the Russians to ask them to supply proof that HMG is lying and expose his stupid scheme where he inadvertently killed his girl friend.

  67. Blogmirers, its quiz time.
    From tonights BBC blurb.

    “Stansted Airport said two RAF Typhoon jets escorted a plane in to land due to a disruptive passenger on board. This led to minor delays for other flights.

    A 25-year-old woman has been arrested on suspicion of assault and endangering an aircraft.”

    The question being, what possible use would the jets be involved in?

    1 Fire a missile and bring the plane down.

    2 Aim shiny mirror at aggresive passanger.

    3 Encourage passenger plane pilot to restrain irate passenger. Sometimes known as “do you job”.

    4 Something else?

    2. Either a terrorist threat was suspected, when the plane would have been shot down before it flew over an area of high population, or crude PR for UK military state of readiness.

    3. I posted this question to friends on Facebook and got the following reply:
      “My understanding is that it is an SOP whenever violence is reported on a passenger plane and in an extreme case and given the political authority to do so the planes would shoot an airliner down. The reason it is publicised is to remind potential 9/11 imitators that the UK is resolute enough to prefer a disaster to a catastrophe like a big aircraft hitting Sizewell B.”

      1. All of which ignores the fact that commercial aircraft are now fitted with lockable tamper proof doors to the cockpit and crew training specific to the threat of violent passengers such that, in the event, no access will be allowed to the cockpit even if passengers are threatened.

        It was VERY crude PR, I’m not sure why, but it has that signature.

  68. What really happened in Iran yesterday?

    Iran shot down a US stealth drone (these cost $100-130m each – the US now has 10 left) using an Iranian made, 5 year old Khordad 3 missile (the latest model is the Khordad 15). The drone was on a spying mission to detect Iranian subs in the Gulf. Iran has already shown missile parts that it says it recovered from the scene – which would tend to corroborate Iran’s claim that the drone was 5km inside its airspace (in full stealth mode) when it was shot down (if it had crashed into international waters, the US would surely have prevented Iran from getting anywhere near it!) The really bad news for the US is that Iran now joins Russia and China in being able to track US aircraft in stealth mode.

    In retaliation, the US intended to strike 3 Iranian sites. Through an intermediary (probably Oman) negotiations were attempted to get Iran to agree to the 3 sites – the US was even prepared to allow Iran to select the sites. But Iran said “NO!”

    US strike planes were already in the air but an NSA hack of Iranian comms revealed that Iran had already locked onto the US planes. If the US had bombed anything without Iran’s agreement it was almost certain that Iran would shoot down US aircraft. So the mission was aborted.

    Claims that Trump baulked at 150 Iranian deaths are simply a cover story. Trump now has a big problem…

      1. Hmm… my reply just failed to post and I have no idea why, so I will split it into segments.

        The P-8 story was interesting. Trump said it might have been a mistake, giving Iran plausible deniability to say “yeah, it was a mistake… sorry” but Iran actually replied: “no, we targeted the drone and deliberately didn’t shoot down the P-8 with 35 lives onboard flying next to it” – which completely demolishes any attempt by the US to say it was not intentional.

          1. Sorry that wasn’t @Anonymous it was me! Don’t know why I could not post before as the above was all I was trying to say…

    2. “Claims that Trump baulked at 150 Iranian deaths are simply a cover story. Trump now has a big problem… ”

      This incident coincided very nicely with the launch of Trump’s 2020 Keep America Great campaign.

      1. America is not great, it is bankrupt but if it goes down it takes the global economies with it.

        To shore up the failed system oil grabs were required.

        Russia has said No More and supported by China.

        The US thought they could bomb their way out of trouble. They can’t.

        Russia now has superiority in air and sea warfare, they have no intention of fighting a land or regional war.

        The neocons would prefer to perish in a thermo nuclear conflict than accept those facts.

        It’s the end of this particular road for the US, as an empire it did not last very long. It’s talent and wealth completely squandered due to greed and stupidity.

        Trump is a fitting last emperor, epitomising everything that is rotton in the murderous State

    3. “US strike planes were already in the air but an NSA hack of Iranian comms revealed that Iran had already locked onto the US planes.”
      Hey Paul, what’s your source for this please? It sounds quite plausible (sorry, “highly likely”) to me but I haven’t seen or heard it anywhere.

      1. That comes from someone who used to work for the NSA. It was something I was told on Friday morning only hours after Trump stopped the bombing. There are now various stories emerging – but I think many of them are not true. I mentioned also the DNS query rate – it is clear that Iran was being ‘attacked’ – there are now stories saying Trump ordered a cyber attack on Iran… I think that is at least half true, there was also cyber spying on the Iranians:
        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-22/trump-ordered-secret-cyber-attacks-iran-alternative-war-thursday-night

        There are also suggestions that Pelosi and Schumer were briefed by Trump and leaked the targets to Brennan who then told the Iranians (the story being that Trump was going to bomb 3 sites if he could not get the Iranians to ‘volunteer’ 3 sites themselves) – a slightly different variant of what I said above is that the US discovered that the plans had been leaked when they saw Iran moving defensive equipment to the 3 sites that were on their penultimate hit list… this was nearly the same as the final list but (if true) would prove someone had leaked the list to Iran (the penultimate list is supposed to have had 2 of the 3 final targets on the list).
        https://twitter.com/FmrBBronie/status/1142061166262398976

        There are also ‘changes’ to the story of whether all the planes were airborne or not… I think this is simple misdirection, they were all ready for an attack.

        I still believe what I put above is true, the Iranians had locked onto the US aircraft and that was why the mission was aborted. If the attack had gone ahead, the US would have lost some aircraft. What we are now seeing is an exercise in ‘confusion’ to try to blur the story so nobody is quite sure what the real story is.

    1. Bella,

      You seem to have a great interest in 777s. Do you know something that we don’t?

  70. On Wednesday 27 June 2018, Rowley said, he was rummaging in a charity shop bin in Salisbury. He had found a television there not long before and the bin was known as a place where valuables could be unearthed.

    “It was a proper honey hole. On that day there was nothing to my eye other than this perfume. I picked it up, put it my pocket and forgot about it for a little while. It stayed in my coat pocket.”

    I think you should go to Specsavers @anonymous

    1. Guardian copy trumps facts and keeps Patrick happy in his ignorance.

      The facts were, are and will be Charlie does not remember where he came into possession of the “perfume”.

      It’s not that hard to understand.

      1. English is obviously hard for you to understand @anonymous. You might be new here but Rob isn’t a big fan of flaming. It is plain, a direct quote ” I picked it up, put it in my pocket”. If you have a direct line to Charlie please share.

    1. @duncan Yup, Charlie can figure out bins are emptied more frequently than every three months.
      The bottle sounds as if it was sealed by someone who knew how dangerous the substance was. I come back to my theory this was a sample obtained from PD intended to be taken to Russia for analysis. Yulia or the two tourists were intended mules.
      The PD mole was being run by Sergei. They suspected they were being watched and waited till the heat was off before chucking it.

    2. Despite what the Guardian says Charlie cannot remember finding the perfume in the bin.

      What Charlie knows is he found several “treasures” in that bin which incidentally is overlooked by a Council CCTV Camera, he assumed he found the perfume in the bin but he doesn’t remember doing so.

      1. “Rowley said the bottle and pump were packaged separately in hard plastic.

        “It was a thick plastic. You couldn’t tear it. It was tough. I remember having to use a kitchen knife.””

        This heavy duty plastic has been mentioned here on Blogmire before but afaik Charlie, in his ITV interview, referred to the wrapper as ‘cellophane’.

        By implication (because it wasn’t included in the images produced by Met CT), no wrapper was found: not butchered plastic, not crumpled cellophane, nor anything else that might have protected the rather battered Nina Ricci packaging that is believed to have accompanied the toxic bundle. It’s significant because it’s an element of the proof that the sealed packet was first opened in Charlie’s flat, as part of the briefing used to infill Charlie’s lace doily of a memory.

        I wonder why they did this … if I’m mistaken about this, please remind me.

    3. “He [=Rowley] looked at himself in a mirror and was alarmed at how tiny his pupils were.”
      This looks like an answer to our criticisms. The whole piece gives me this impression. I don’t buy it.
      When he says “Where did the bottle come from? Was it the Russians or wasn’t it? How did it get on the streets? It’s still a blank. It can’t possibly be the same bottle that was used on the Skripals. They empty the bins regularly” he echoes recent declarations of the police.

      1. I remember that the pupil is not the iris. For my part, I have never paid attention to the appearance of my pupils.

        1. Didn’t DS Bailey say something similar.

          What I can’t figure out is that he says the liquid was oily and had no smell.

          Then it’s not perfume so why give it to Dawn?

          The hard plastic is interesting ( if true? ) as shrink wrap is usually tearable with a fingernail or teethe.

          Ironically if Charlie does go to Russia he might be treated better than he has been in the UK.

        2. An interesting page about pinpoint pupils :
          https://www.healthline.com/health/pinpoint-pupils

          Among the causes : nerve agents, but also use of methadone.
          And : “He [= Charlie Rowley] had been prescribed methadone to help him overcome heroin addiction”
          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/amesbury-novichok-incident-dawn-sturgess-death-family-statement-investigation-poisoning-a8440071.html

          Thus, why was he so surprised to have pupillary constriction ?

          1. I believe it all a narrative for Hoax. Pinprick eyes idea has been enforced
            by whoever trying to make hoax story consistent.
            Bailey mentioned this and he not on methadone is he?
            Rowley would know this due his past addiction but why say it regarding
            alleged perfume poisoning?
            We have a Hero and a Unfortunate both saying same. Mr Bailey lost everything
            as in personal processions. Mr Rowley lost his Partner and health.
            Mr Bailey gets help but Mr Rowley is cast aside with no help after
            largest Government Disaster since 1963 Sex Scandal,Train Robbery.

          2. Pinpoint pupils are symptoms of BOTH heroin and methadone :

            [QUOTE]
            “Some signs of heroin abuse are:
            Bloodshot eyes
            Constricted “pinpoint” pupils” (…)”
            [/QUOTE]
            (“Heroin Symptoms and Warning Signs”, Addiction Center,
            https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/heroin/symptoms-signs/ )

            [QUOTE]
            One of the most likely reasons someone might have pinpoint pupils is the use of narcotic pain medications and other drugs in the opioid family, such as:

            codeine
            fentanyl
            hydrocodone
            oxycodone
            morphine
            methadone
            heroin
            [/QUOTE]
            https://www.healthline.com/health/pinpoint-pupils#causes

            And we know that Rowley was under methadone for a heroin addiction.

      2. I also noted that (for the first time) the Grauniad mentioned a “thick plastic” wrapper. That was first mentioned on this blog many months ago – it was described here as “like a pack of bacon”, which I believe was Charlie’s own description. I think your assessment that the piece is in reply to our criticisms is absolutely on the money. The only ‘new’ information that I thought was interesting was that the bottle and applicator were separately wrapped – could that be true? What might it be relevant to?

        For some reason, they want to push the idea that Charlie found it in that charity bin… but we already know Charlie is far from sure about that. Have they got some new narrative they want to unleash that links to the bin I wonder… we will find out soon enough.

        1. „… the bottle and applicator were separately wrapped – could that be true?“

          No Paul, I don´t think so. Even the unwrapped bottle and applicator would not fit in the box.
          Look at the photos I posted here :
          https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbury-poisoning-one-year-on-an-open-letter-to-the-metropolitan-police/#comment-25874

          Quite astonishingly the police told us on July 7, 2018 BEFORE they found the perfume bottle :
          „ At this time, it remains that no-one else has presented with the same symptoms linked to this incident. Following further tests of samples from the patients, we now know that they were exposed to the nerve agent after handling a contaminated item #Amesbury. https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/1015513460862521344

          „we now know that they were exposed to the nerve agent after handling a contaminated item“
          Would you call a perfume bottle filled with pure Novichok „a contaminated item“ ?

          The Guardian refreshes our memories with a story that fits a certain narrative.
          But more interesting is what is NOT mentioned :

          1. Charlie does not mention that he washed his hands ! He sprayed his hands, Dawn sprayed her wrists – but only Dawn felt ill immediately. Impossible !

          2. Neither Sam Hobson is mentioned nor their trip to Boots pharmacy and the Baptist center !

          3. The Guardian wants us to think that Dawn and Charlie were alone when they were „Friday night – 29 June – partying at his flat“.
          But this is not true ! We know that they took the bus to Amesbury together with some friends. These friends must have stayed overnight in Charlies flat. And it seems they were there when Dawn fell ill, because :
          Quote : „This red Transit van, travelled in by Charlie with three others before he fell ill, has been sent to Porton Down for testing.“
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5936919/Novichok-poisoning-probe-spreads-Swindon-police-seize-car.html

          Why does nobody (Charlie included) tell us what really happened in this night ?
          Again : It could be that Charlie was a victim of cuckooing !

          1. Again : It could be that Charlie was a victim of cuckooing !

            Yes. And I agree that the thick plastic wrap means that someone knew how dangerous the perfume bottle was – and that it would be handled by people who did not know – like postal workers.
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38223838/is-your-postman-delivering-drugs

            Above would mean that Charles Rowley is heavily invested in saying “his” bottle had nothing to do with Skripals.
            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/07/salisbury-novichok-poisoning-hidden-homeless-charlie-rowley-dawn-sturgess-skripal-nerve-agent
            “Phillips says that hard drugs are readily available in Salisbury. “I was living under the Maltings car park when all this first happened in March. I’d say there were 40 or 50 addicts in that car park. Salisbury’s got a big problem,” he says.
            …
            Dean adds that in recent years there has been a growth in “county lines” dealing, where gangs attempt to move drugs into new markets. “We do not have a drug epidemic. But what we have seen is a bit of county lines drug dealing, with people coming from Southampton, Portsmouth, London and Birmingham finding people that are vulnerable and getting drugs to them.””

            1. At least we know where the idea came from for Charlie to have found the perfume whilst bin diving;

              “Harris thinks that Rowley may have touched the vessel containing the deadly nerve agent while “bin diving” – retrieving unwanted electrical items from wheelie bins to sell at the local Cash Converters.

              “He goes bin diving like a lot of people do. But now after what has happened I’m not going,” he says.”

              (Guardian link above)

              Finding it in Queen Elizabeth Gardens was eventually ruled out and the bottle recovered from Charlies flat not Dawn’s room at John Baker House (where the police radio was misplaced).

              The perfume bottle eventually discovered after 11 days on the kitchen worktop in plain sight and conspicuous by its presence there. Thick plastic wrapper in the bin kept secret by the police.

              Why would the police want to withhold that vital evidence from the public? It meant the Salisbury container was still at large and some lunatic was planting bottles of Novichok disguised as perfume and goodness knows what else in places where children might find them.

              Duck feed boys – no action by police for two weeks
              Sam Hobson who was in the flat with Dawn and Charlie and called for Charlie’s ambulance – not medically checked over for two weeks but he did contract the same strain as meningitis that Charlie did.

              It took nearly two weeks to come up with the story of discovering the perfume in the kitchen yet where it was found was predicted a week before.

              For all Charlie knows the perfume could have been slipped into his pocket at anytime perhaps when he had taken his jacket off in Lizzy Gardens when they were enjoying the summer and celebrating the world cup. Charlie Dawn and Sam had bought some hair dye and were dying their hair in England colours by the river in Lizzy Gardens. Distracted and care free it would have been simple for a psychopathic State agent (and it could only be a State agent according to HMG) to slip the thick plastic wrapped package into his pocket. If Charlie was high on booze and methadone he might not have thought twice about it or even noticed it.

              But why shut the park down for several months and what about the Novichok contamination to the public toilets in the car park adjoining Lizzy Gardens?

              Charlie wants answers for a bloody good reason. The police have kept information from him and have lied to him.

              1. The bin is overlooked by a Council CCTV camera it would have seen Charlie finding his “treasure” he had indeed found many treasures in the same bin and was not averse to actually getting in the bin to have a good search. He had recovered a TV and other electrical goodies including a massage seat costing over £200 new.

                The evidence of him finding it would be recorded, the police would know exactly when and where he made his find from the 1000’s of hours of CCTV seized. That they don’t have that evidence speaks volumes because if they did they would also have the recording of who planted it.

                But they don’t have enough evidence to charge anyone for Dawn’s murder with the world’s deadliest nerve agent that both Charlie and Dawn inhaled.

                How long will this nonsense continue?

                1. Porton Down have said the Chemical that killed Dawn is a Nerve Agent that takes a minimum of 3 hours to take effect with a large enough dose.

                  Porton Down are talking bollocks, Military Nerve Agents when inhaled act in seconds not hours.

                  Does anyone believe this claptrap anymore? Charlie and Dawn’s family want answers, as do we all, if HMG isn’t going to give them then I hope Charlie does go to Russia to seek them.

                  The ludicrous lies and cruelty have to stop, Charlie and Dawn’s family are owed a truthful explanation.

                2. “Harris was seen by specialists after he also fell ill last weekend, around the same time as Rowley and Sturgess. “I had diarrhoea and vomiting on Saturday morning. I was in hospital from Saturday evening until Sunday morning. I was checked by Porton Down scientists and thankfully I got the all-clear,” he says.”
                  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/07/salisbury-novichok-poisoning-hidden-homeless-charlie-rowley-dawn-sturgess-skripal-nerve-agent

                  Around the same time : what a coincidence !

              2. Police stated that they could not be sure more stuff was not around.

                What could have been the motif for using Novichok a second time in Salisbury?
                Syria?
                https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/24/youre-on-your-own-us-tells-syrian-rebels-as-assad-goes-on-offensive
                “The US has warned Syrian rebels in the south-west of the country they should not expect military support to help them resist a major government offensive.

                The message from Washington comes as Russian jets struck an opposition-held town on Sunday in the first air cover provided by Moscow to an expanding Syrian army offensive in the strategic area bordering Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

                The US message sent to heads of the Free Syrian Army said Washington wanted to make clear that “you should not base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us”.”

              3. Agree 100% Public Toilet Novihoax Factory just another load of BS.
                Wooden Top outside in no paint spraying suit or mask with blue white
                tape around building.
                Novihoax cant cross blue white tape. Another fault of Russian Stuff.

          2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5936919/Novichok-poisoning-probe-spreads-Swindon-police-seize-car.html

            Carole Gray, 61, who runs The Sailors’ Society charity shop in the city centre, said it was scary to think that anyone could have just picked up the Novichok.

            She said: ‘I’ve heard that they may have found it by dump diving in charity shop donation bins.

            ‘We have bins out the back, and they are gone through daily – anyone could have just walked by and put something in there.

            ‘And someone could just walk past and rifle through them.

            ‘It’s concerning because we then have to go through those bags.’

            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/21/novichok-victim-partner-kept-in-the-dark-charlie-rowley-dawn-sturgess

            Wasn’t Dawn supposed to have been his partner of 2 years?

          3. This is the key part from the Guardian describing the bottle and what ‘happened’:

            “The gift comprised a battered box within which was a bottle and pump. Rowley said the bottle and pump were packaged separately in hard plastic.

            “It was a thick plastic. You couldn’t tear it. It was tough. I remember having to use a kitchen knife.” As he attached the pump to the bottle, Rowley pressed the nozzle down. “It released on to me. I rinsed it off. It had an oily texture and next to no smell. I did mention [the lack of smell] to Dawn. She just carried on and gave it a spray, thinking nothing of it. She squirted it on to her wrists as she sat in front of the telly.”

            1) Let’s not ask for now how a box gets battered if it is wrapped in hard plastic – I bet it wasn’t when HMG’s agents prepared it for use
            2) Charlie does say he ‘rinsed’ it off
            3) I don’t understand the separate ‘packaging’ idea at all – I suspect it is just badly written and it was supposed to say that the pump and applicator were not assembled (but obviously the inside of the box had to be destroyed so they could both fit).

            The WPD tweet is incredible! This was before the bottle was ‘found’ in the kitchen (supposedly)… so what sort of tests would show they ‘handled a contaminated item’ instead of some other form of exposure? And I agree with you, a bottle full of novihoax is obviously not ‘contaminated’ – that is like saying a bottle of milk is ‘contaminated’ with milk…. but that is what WPD said. The bottle was not contaminated, it was the prime source (if it is all true).

          4. Further to Liane’s “Again : It could be that Charlie was a victim of cuckooing !”

            **** Police have visited a number of addresses including in Salisbury and Amesbury.

            Groups groom young and vulnerable people into dealing drugs in a process known as cuckooing.

            In the last week ( 13-19th May) our local force has carried out welfare checks on a number of addresses.

            The campaign highlights the sqalor and poor living conditions which vulnerable young people are often forced into.

            24 vulnerable adults were identified and spoken to, 11 of those were women and 13 men.

            In total 41 “cuckooed” addresses were visited including 15 in Salisbury and one in Amesbury. ****

            https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2877100/crackdown-on-county-lines-drugs-gangs-in-wiltshire/

    1. Bella,

      Interesting theory. MH370 disappeared on 8 March 2014. MH17 shot down on 17 July 2014. They were both Boeing 777s.

      If you’re right, there must be one aircraft still hidden somewhere.

      1. Blunderbuss,
        Yes I working that theory and will contact whn I work it out.
        Wouldn’t take much dumping parts of an aircraft of type in Oceans
        on Beach altering serial part numbers so matching missing aircraft.

        If an aircraft being hidden it could be painted any World Airline for
        use in any future false flag operation terrorist attack.
        Interesting ideas.

      3. I think it’s common knowledge Israel have an identical one mothballed. Probably for Straits of Hormuz provocation.

  73. Salisbury has a problem with class A drugs, fentanyl and with CUCKOOING.
    It is well possible that Charlie was a victim of cuckooing too.
    We know that in the night before Dawn and Charlie were poisoned, several people stayed in his flat.
    Who were these people ? Friends or drug dealers ?
    We also know that Charlie had a fight with Sam Hobson. What was the reason ?

    Here are some articles on the matter :

    https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2897756/four-suspected-drug-dealers-arrested-in-salisbury/

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16882114.fentanyl-warning-to-salisbury-drug-users/

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/uk_national_news/16400707.fentanyl-and-cocaine-deaths-continue-to-rise/

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/fentanyl-fentanil-drug-china-white-dark-web-dealer-jailed-wales-kyle-enos-nca-police-investigation-a8195961.html

    1. Liane,

      From what you say, it seems likely that Charlie was a victim of cuckooing and that both Charlie and Dawn were poisoned by Fentanyl.

      What I don’t understand is why somebody decided to invent a cock-and-bull story about a perfume bottle and Novihoax to embellish a tragic but unremarkable case of drug overdose.

      1. Blunderbuss, you said : “What I don’t understand is why somebody decided to invent a cock-and-bull story about a perfume bottle and Novihoax to embellish a tragic but unremarkable case of drug overdose.”

        Well, just before Dawn Sturgess’ death, there were people who reasoned in this manner :

        [QUOTE]The emergence of additional victims “will give it a renewed sense of urgency,” particularly if one of them succumbs, said James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, a research group in London.

        “The spines were weakening,” Mr. Nixey said of the British authorities, “and if there are new crimes or misdemeanors on the part of the Russian state, then it means that those spines can be restiffened.” If either victim dies, he added, “it becomes a murder investigation, and it’s involving a British national rather than a Russian national.”[/QUOTE]

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/europe/uk-novichok-poison.html

        2. The full quote makes it sound like Britain was pushed to “prove” Russia was behind it by the second assassination.
          “If either of the two dies, it would present the British and Russian authorities with a new diplomatic scenario. Among the great surprises of the March attack on Mr. Skripal and his daughter is that they did not die, most likely because they received a relatively small dosage. The police officer, Detective Sgt. Nick Bailey, also got better.
          Their recoveries meant the attack fell off the front pages, allowing investigators to proceed with a slow, methodical search for evidence that might support their leading theory — that Russian agents were behind the attack. The emergence of additional victims “will give it a renewed sense of urgency,” particularly if one of them succumbs, said James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, a research group in London.”
          However, Amesbury made this even more unlikely.

  74. Military Grade Nerve Agents do not have a time delay designed in.

    Time for Nerve Agents to take effect

    Federation of American Scientists

    “Effects from nerve agent vapor begin within seconds to several minutes after exposure. Loss of consciousness and onset of seizure activity have occurred within a minute of exposure to a high Ct. After exposure to a very low Ct, miosis and other effects may not begin for several minutes, and miosis may not be complete for 15 to 30 minutes after removal from the vapor. There is no latent period or delay in onset from vapor exposure. Effects may continue to progress for a period of time, but maximal effects usually occur within minutes after exposure stops.

    A large amount of liquid on the skin causes effects within minutes. Commonly there is an asymptomatic period of one to 30 minutes, and then the sudden onset of an overwhelming cascade of events, including loss of consciousness, seizure activity, apnea, and muscular flaccidity. After small amounts of liquid agent on the skin the onset of effects has been delayed for as long as 18 hours after contact. These effects are initially gastrointestinal and are usually not life threatening. Generally, the longer the interval the less severe are the effects.”

    https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/NervAgnt.htm#TIME%20COURSE%20OF%20EFFECTS

    OPCW

    “Poisoning takes longer when the nerve agent enters the body through the skin. Nerve agents are more or less fat-soluble and can penetrate the outer layers of the skin. However, it takes some time before the poison reaches the deeper blood vessels. Consequently, the first symptoms do not occur until 20-30 minutes after the initial exposure but subsequently the poisoning process may be rapid if the total dose of nerve agent is high. The toxic effect of nerve agents depends on them becoming bound to an enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, and thereby inhibit this vital enzyme’s normal biological activity in the cholinergic nervous system.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170711060845/https://www.opcw.org/protection/types-of-chemical-agent/nerve-agents/

    Pubic Health England (referring to the specific chemical found in Salisbury and Amesbury)
    “If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum (that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be in touch with a large dose.”

    https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2630419/amesbury-incident-novichok-could-be-active-for-50-years/

    A High Court Judges Summary or the evidence presented to the Court by Porton Down
    “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.”

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

    Conclusion

    The Chemical said to have been used in Salisbury and Amesbury was certainly not a Military Grade Nerve Agent. In any case whatever it was it would not have stayed pure and free from impurities after two weeks in the open air being rained / snowed upon and being repeatedly handled by gloved and bare hands.

    Time for victims to show symptoms

    The Skripals 2.5 hours
    Dawn Sturgess 15 minutes
    Charlie Rowley 8 Hours
    DS Bailey Days ?

    Dawn likely died at Charlie’s flat from an extreme allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock) to whatever was in the fake counterfeit perfume bottle. Dawn’s family and loved one’s deserve answers to what killed her and why.

    Secrecy due to “ongoing inquiries” is a cruel, feeble and cowardly excuse / lie

    1. Public Heath England’s (PHE) advice on the specific chemical used in Salisbury and Wiltshire (3 hours minimum for effects to show with a large dose and 12 hours maximum for a significant dose) was gained by PHE’s experts being allowed access to classified material, presumably that of their colleagues and neighbours at Porton Down DSTL.

      The advice on time taken for clinical signs to appear is only possible to determine from experimenting on animals or humans.

      We know from Boris Johnson that Porton Down had a pre existing sample of the chemical and we know from PHE that mammalian testing had been carried out.

      So much for only Russia could have produced this stuff

    2. We shall never know what chemical Dawn was exposed to because her body has been cremated. How convenient for the poisoners.

  75. To understand how Bellingcat works read this Twitter (MH17 related) :
    https://twitter.com/hspvn/status/1141838086156013568

    The screenshot posted by Bellingcat´s Pieter van Huis shows the PRIVAT MESSAGES on a fake Pulatov VK account !
    Pulatov is one of the four persons accused by JIT (Joint Investigation Team) to have responsibility for the MH17 shot down.

    The JIT account is fake, too ! Here is the real JIT VK account :
    https://vk.com/jitmh17investigation

    How can Bellingcat have access ???
    We already know – they are supported by Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on.

    1. The idea that Bellinghoax gets its information from ‘open sources’ is complete BS!

      “FSB operatives are looking for Interior Ministry employees who may have sold or given journalists or other entities the forms and other documents pertaining to Petrov and Boshirov. “Information containing personal data should not be in free circulation. There have already been serious incidents where such ‘holes’ have been used by criminals, and by western intelligence agencies…”
      http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2018/09/25/1734149.html

  76. If I purchased-owned an AK47 Russian gun with all numbers stamped onto
    parts of gun and it later fell into wrong hands killing people would Russia
    be at blame because Russia manufacture gun?
    All numbers can trace gun back to Russia. Factory,Date,History before sale.

    I find it strange that Russia built BUK.SAM that allegedly downed Aircraft?
    Parts recovered had serial numbers undamaged and no damage to case.

    If Russia had done this why leave fingerprints,numbers all over BUK.SAM
    tracing weapon back to Russia?
    Once sold and transferred on it not a Russian problem is it?

    Russia being setup and very patient.
    BUK.SAM would be unmarked if Russia responsible avoiding after sale
    reprocutions giving blame.

  77. At what time of the day was Glushkov murdered?

    Natalia Glushkova said she last spoke to her father at 9pm on Sunday 11 March. He was due to appear the next day in the high court to defend himself – that would have been at approximately 10am on 12 March but he did not turn up.

    Glushkova said she called her father at 8pm on Monday 12 March to see how the hearing had gone. There was no reply. She tried his other devices – and then set off for his house in Clarence Avenue, arriving about 10pm.
    Source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/11/nikolai-glushkov-daughter-appeals-witnesses-murder-natalia-glushkova

    A slightly different time was given in this article, also from the Guardian:

    “On the morning of 12 March he failed to turn up to court.

    At about 10.30pm that evening his daughter Natalia and his former civil partner Denis Trushin called at his home in Clarence Avenue and found his body.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/07/murdered-russian-exile-nikolai-glushkov-poisoning-attempt-bristol

    The Met announcement states that the emergency services were called at 10:46 pm on 12 March.

    It therefore appears that he was alive at 9pm on Sunday but something happened to prevent him from appearing in court the next morning.

    There was no sign of forced entry and his body was found hanging (he was already dead when he was hanged) – since it would be almost impossible for one man to have strung up a dead body unaided, it would be reasonable to assume at least two people entered Glushkov’s house, after 9pm on Sunday and murdered him. BUT they were let into the house and even Glushkov’s dog (a Rhodesian Ridgeback – notorious for loyalty and protecting their owners) is said not to have barked.

    This leads to 2 questions:
    1) Who might Glushkov have allowed into his house after 9pm on Sunday? and
    2) Who said they did not hear the dog barking?

    Also The Met later said: “The Volkswagen van was seen in and around Clarence Avenue between 7.30pm and 10.30pm on Sunday March 11. Detectives are keen to identify the van and driver, who they believe could have information that may help with their inquiries.” But we already know that Glushkov was still alive at 9pm… would potential murderers really hang around for 3 hours?

    The Russian Embassy website puts the date of his death 8 days after the Salisbury incident – so Monday 12 March. Where does this date come from, why not 11 March?

    But back to the question of who would anyone allow into their house after 9pm on a Sunday, especially if it was more than one person? Surely there are only 2 possible answers: 1) someone you know; or 2) someone from (say) the police, who said they were there on official business. We know from the Rosbalt article that police had been visiting Russian exiles in London in the days leading up to his death.

    1. On 14 August, 2018, The Met released CCTV showing a black van, which it was suggested, detectives were trying to trace. “A Volkswagen van was spotted near Nikolay Glushkov’s home the day before he was found dead earlier this year”, Scotland Yard said.
      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nikolai-glushkov-murder-detectives-release-cctv-of-black-van-after-russian-found-strangled-at-london-a3910686.html

      Note this is more than 4 months after Glushkov’s body had been found by his daughter at: 42 Clarence Avenue, New Malden, KT3 3ED, SW London.

      “A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “The Volkswagen van was seen in and around Clarence Avenue between 7.30pm and 10.30pm on Sunday March 11. Detectives are keen to identify the van and driver, who they believe could have information that may help with their inquiries.”

      If detectives were ‘keen’… why did they wait so long to release the images? How many more CCTV cameras on Clarence Avenue caught the images? Surely they got a number plate off one of them?

      Liane has suggested the van actually belonged to a neighbour:
      https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbury-poisoning-one-year-on-an-open-letter-to-the-metropolitan-police/#comment-26135

      The CCTV camera that took the image of the van is located at 87 Clarence Avenue. Here:
      https://www.google.at/maps/@51.4092786,-0.2678913,3a,15y,3.56h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si5VaY7A4hrUB6SGYEJz_xQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

      If you pan around that image, you will see it is taken almost on top of the “[BUS]STOP” marked on the road in the CCTV images.

      So the CCTV was taken by a camera more than 20 houses away from Glushkov’s house – how long had The Met had these images? It must have been months! Why were the CCTV images not released earlier?

      Also, why did The Met use images so far from Glushkov’s house? It is (again!) inconceivable that Glushkov didn’t have his own CCTV system but even if he didn’t, his neighbour does have CCTV! In fact two cameras:
      https://www.google.at/maps/@51.4088904,-0.2716361,3a,15y,129.31h,99.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soqYw0Go80poyeJi6mUI9zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

      These cameras must have seen whoever visited Glushkov’s house. Presumably it was one of the neighbours who said that Glushkov’s dog had not barked. Why is the case not solved? Where is the manhunt? How many suspects (as seen on the neighbour’s CCTV) have been arrested? Why is HMG still stone-walling the Russian Embassy?

      On 22 March, the inquest into Glushkov’s death was opened and adjourned… pending further police investigation…
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/nikolai-glushkov-inquest-adjourns-pending-further-investigation

  78. Meet SITU Research – a New York architecture company.
    Coincidentally, SITU created 3D reconstructions on two events and they supported the official narrative with their findings – promoted by the NYT.
    So you can talk about successful team work in whitewashing.
    The two events are the Douma chemical attack and the Maidan massacre.
    We know that both events were false flags.

    Links :
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/24/world/middleeast/douma-syria-chemical-attack-augmented-reality-ar-ul.html

    http://maidan.situplatform.com/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html

    Quote : The prosecutor general of Ukraine recently announced that the investigation of the Maidan massacre is complete. He cited reconstructions of the Maidan massacre by a New York architecture company, working with a team of Ukrainian “volunteers” to provide a 3D model, as definite evidence that the Maidan protesters were massacred by the Berkut police and that snipers did not massacre the protesters.
    This model was featured by The New York Times, in its May 30, 2018, report “Who Killed the Kiev Protesters?” as a proof that the Berkut police massacred Maidan protesters.
    Brad Samuels is a founding partner of Situ Research. Samuels said in a video [start at 55:16] that : “…eventually, there is a consensus that there was a third party acting. It is clear from forensic evidence that people were shot in the back. Somebody was shooting from rooftops.”
    His striking observation was not included anywhere in the SITU 3D model report that he produced. Nor was it reported by the Times.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/22/the-buried-maidan-massacre-and-its-misrepresentation-by-the-west/

    It seems SITU is the only company in the world able to produce 3D models on high profile cases…
    Who paid them for the two reconstructions ?
    Should we ask SITU to create a 3D model of the Skripals both touching the the outer door handle ?

    1. The whole point of a false flag is to manipulate opinion. Real people may die – but the event itself is staged and fake. There are now too many examples to list and I know that you know what they are anyway.

      Salisbury is slightly different because whilst it is undoubtedly fake, I believe that the outcome was not what the original planners had planned. Those original planners were, however, the ones left trying to explain it all after it went FUBAR. That is what we now call the official narrative… which starts with a risible lie – there was no novihoax on the door handle or anywhere else. We should not assume that any part of the rest of the official narrative is any more truthful than the door handle theory.

      1. I don’t know if this was already commented on BlogMire :
        “Russian exiles have now been asked by cops to help identify a mystery couple aged between 35 and 40 seen close to Skripal and his daughter before they collapsed.”
        (The Sun, 14 March 2018)
        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5803698/police-hunt-mystery-couple-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-dorset-town-gillingham/

        Why did the cops question only Russian exiles ? Why didn’t they publish the images of these suspects with a call to the public to identifying them ?

        1. Very interesting. I just commented below about Boshirov’s comment that there were a lot of “Russian-speaking tourists” in Salisbury. Is this yet more Russians?

          1. It would seem that the couple was Russian:
            .
            .
            Police are trying to track down a mystery ‘Russian’ couple seen close to the pair before they were poisoned, it is claimed. Counter-terror detectives have reportedly shown grainy CCTV images of the pair to Russians living in London and Salisbury.

            Respected Moscow-based news agency Rosbalt claims the couple, aged between 35 and 40, left the UK on the day of the attack.

            It is not known if the pair – a dark-haired man and blonde woman – are the same two seen in CCTV that emerged last week. A source told the news outlet: “The photo made from a surveillance camera is not the best quality. There is a man with dark hair on it and a blonde woman. They look around 35-to-40. They are in the street seemingly like a couple in love. Their faces cannot be seen clearly.”

            “From the conversation with Scotland Yard officers, I realised these people were close to Skripal in some places – and on the day of the poisoning left England.”

            The report did not explain how the police know they left the country if they are still unaware of their identity.

            “Police are asking if they look familiar and if they have been seen with any Russian businessmen,” claimed Rosbalt. For some reason it is believed that the couple is from Russia. They are also asking if the businessmen are receiving any threats related to these people.”
            https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chilling-new-cctv-shows-sergei-12189519
            https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/daughter-russian-spy-real-target-12190866
            .
            .
            Today it was claimed prominent Russians in London are being shown a picture of a couple, thought to be Russian, seen walking in Salisbury around the time Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned.

            A report in Moscow suggests a grainy picture of the suspected Russian couple aged between 35 and 40 – seemingly in love – has been shown to members of the emigre community. ‘The police are saying that they are interested in them because of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal,’ reported Rosbalt news outlet, which did not publish the picture.

            A source in London who claimed to have spoken to Scotland Yard detectives was reported as telling Rosbalt: ‘The photo made from a surveillance camera is not the best quality. ‘There is a man with dark hair on it and a blonde woman. They look around 35-to-40. They are in the street seemingly like a couple in love. Their faces cannot be seen clearly.’

            CCTV which emerged in the days after the poisoning showed a blonde woman and an older man walking past a gym in Salisbury shortly before the Skripals were found collapsed.

            It is not clear whether that image – originally thought to be the Skripals – is the one reportedly being shown to Russian Londoners. The Met Police denied the CCTV was being shown to Russians.
            https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5499537/Police-seize-car-tow-truck-driver-spy-probe.html
            .
            .
            How many more Russians were in Salisbury that day? Are these perhaps some of the “Russian-speaking tourists” Boshirov referred to? And they flew back to Russia the same day… hmm.

                1. Do we have the reg. numbers of any of the buried police cars and ambulances?

                  I could look those up as well.

            2. interesting. Perhaps someone that reads Russian is around and could pull up and translate the Rosbalt article. (Rosbalt appears to be located in St. Petersberg and may have connections to Russian security services.)

              It seems nearly impossible to describe the Market Walk man as dark haired, but the Met has more than one CCTV of this couple and another may be clearer as to his hair color.

              I’ve long been bothered by the second hand report from Zizzi that described an agitated man speaking Russian. In general English only speakers can’t discriminate among German, Swedish, etc. Perhaps that’s what led the Met to make inquiries in the Russian emigre community.

                1. Thanks Paul. Hope a someone will show up and translate those articles for the benefit of the hopelessly monolingual readers like me.

              2. Something that caught my attention was the description of the “poor quality” image. If this couple was wandering around Salisbury there must be a lot of ‘high quality’ images of them. So why were the police using an image where you could not really see their faces and then asking if anyone knew them?

                1. Why a poor quality image? IMO:

                  It wasn’t ever meant to be in the public (and this decision was applied retrospectively).

                  The couple are not meant to be identified.

                  (I’m still wondering whether this isn’t the couple who were in vehement disagreement in Zizzi; well, he was volubly irate and she was silent, according to the anonymous witness and this dispute may have only occurred during the revised timeline for Zizzi.)

                  1. eleanor: “I’m still wondering whether this isn’t the couple who were .. in Zizzi” and the man made a scene, as if he intended to be seen/noticed by others.

                    Considering the one description of what was taken to be the Skripals at Zizzi that made it to a media report and was very similar even to the fuzzy CCTV and the CCTV time of these two on the Market Walk, it fits. Entirely possible that it tripped up the police officers attempting to gather information. If those were WPD officers and only MetCT had access to the public CCTV recordings, wouldn’t be surprising that they police were canvassing businesses for images of this couple. If so, then it wouldn’t have been MetCT that released the images of the Market Walk couple, and therefore, my guess on this point would be wrong.

                    How quickly did MetCT publicly reject the assumption that the Market Walk couple were the Skripals? iirc less than 48 hours. But does this connect with the flip from Zizzi to Mill Pub to Mill Pub to Zizzi that came days (weeks?) later?

                2. Busy work for low level Met troops while those at the top worked on concocting a Russian/Putin done did it narrative without more than twenty gaping holes?

                  Originally considered that the Met was playing a long-shot with this effort, but using crap images forces one to discount that.

              3. If they left the same day by plane British authorities would have airport cctv – which I assume is connected to passports shown.
                If part of any “professional hit team” these passport would be fake.

                Speaking Russian and flying back to Russia does not mean they were Russian – as in citizenship. If they were part of any state “professional hit team” they would enter and return via different countries.

                As in Kim Yong Nam’s case they may have been hired with an innocent sounding story – a prank, a family issue whatever ….

              4. It seems to me that one of the commentators had drawn attention to a case of overdose which, according to the official version, would have occurred at the very moment and at the very place where the Skripal had their crisis on the bench, but I do not find that in my files. Could someone give me a reference to the press? Thank you in advance.

                1. Inquirer, you won’t find anything on this point other that assumptions, conjectures, guesses — most frequent one being “collapsed simultaneously at the bench.” MetCT knows because they have the CCTV, but they have been silent on this. The nearest they might have come to anything on this was a statement that the two people were at the bench at 3:45. However, that was issued as they were dispelling the assumption that the Market Walk couple were the bench couple; so, that may have been disinfo by MetCT.

                  So far, we only know that the bench people were ambulatory — got to the bench on their own – and were there before 4:05 when Freya Church noticed them. Others may have seen and noticed them before then, but they either haven’t spoken to reporters or are unable to cite a time.

                  More likely — and there weren’t that many people out and about the area at that time on that day — they weren’t noticed because there was nothing distinguishing enough for anyone to notice. “Simultaneous collapse” would have been noticeable. My guess is that one of the two people guided the other who was slightly wobbly to the bench. A breather for the dizziness to pass, and as they sat there, the dizzy one became progressively worse and then the “guide” became ill as well. (I’m assuming that the bench people weren’t crisis actors.)

            3. Lots of CCTV. Do we have couple entering Market Walk. Did they appear from
              a Shop within Market Walk or departed a Shop not open on a Sunday?
              Did Taxi drop both off or an unmarked vehicle at Market Walk entry?
              Did they walk out Zizzi into Market Walk?
              Star Trek transporter systems don’t beam suspects down so Police have all
              CCTV and know what has happen
              Not telling Public because a Lie.

  80. Breaking…”The Turnip” Stumbles Falls….”BoJo” Romping Ahead….”Champagne Charlie MI56 Rory”
    Chomping On Bitt…..

  81. Salisbury Response very fast, and a diagnosis too.

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/17706558.five-people-found-unconscious-inside-house-in-wick-lane-downton/

    Emergency teams called at 09:50am, 4 people unconscious. (Somehow it started as 5, then became 4, but with all those bodies lying around, triage is difficult.)

    Almost immediately, (air ambulance responded too ) the police had determined that the victims were drug related which is quite impressive.
    By 12:06 there was already a Tweet about how the incident had been dealt with.
    2 hours 15 minutes and the job was sorted.

    1. Smell of gas but possible drug related? Hey.. did we have gas escaping
      47,Zizzi,Mill,Maltings back in 18?
      Sorry Vlad it was all a big mistake. Is this cover for Theresa, put blame
      on British Gas due contracting work out because of her cutbacks.
      Perfect escape route..”BINGO CHAPS” sorted.

      1. Smile, where I live the road is closed for 6 hours when an “Incident Response Team” turn up because a pot hole has been discovered, or even worse 5ml of diesel has found it’s way onto the road surface.
        In Salisbury, which really is a unique part of the UK, we have a smell of gas, but no safety drill of evacuation, 4 or maybe 5 unconscious folk in a house, a rapid conclusion that drugs were involved, the air ambulance deployed but not needed, and the no hospital report.
        Job done in less than three hours.

        I challenge you to search Google and find the last time 4 (or even 5) people were found unconscious in a house in the UK.
        If it did occur I can guarantee it would be a MAJOR INCIDENT.
        It is so unusual, but gets a paragraph in the local rag in Salisbury.

        Rob should never complain about his council tax, Wiltshire folk really get value for money.

  82. Pure Speculation Alert

    One thing that has been nagging me about this case is the fact that I always had a bit of trouble reconciling some of the images of Petrov & Boshirov. Add to the mix that some have cast doubt on some of the Chepiga & Mishkin images, and it’s all a bit confusing.

    So I put together a couple of collages of the “two guys”. I would be interested in what people think. My own inclination is to believe that the guys seen coming in at Gatwick and leaving at Heathrow (upper and left pictures in each collage), are not the same as the people in the middle and right hand rows. Certainly when you look at “Petrov’s” hairline in the Gatwick and Heathrow images, it is completely different to the guy in the other pictures. Also, remember that — despite what the media says — the Met has never officially said that Petrov & Boshirov are Chepiga and Mishkin. Might there be a reason for that?

    Boshirov

    Boshirov Collage

     

    Petrov

    PetrovCollage

    1. I will throw this into the pot too. This is the logo on Boshirov’s jacket as seen on the RT interview:
      https://anonymousfiles.io/z16pdVVt/

      Now I think that is the same logo as seen in the Gatwick arrival image but I am not convinced that the other 2 images in your collage are exactly the same logo… are we even looking at the same jacket?

      I do not recognise the brand of the logo. Do any of our Russian contributors know if it is a Russian brand?

      1. Good point.

        Also the bags are troubling. Those shoulder bags as seen at Gatwick are great for documents, money, documents, etc. You keep those with you when you travel around. They both have them at Gatwick, but not in Salisbury. This is aside from the whole issue around hold baggage vs hand baggage.

      2. My opinion hasn’t changed:

        The RT Boshirov doesn’t seem to be any of the other 2018 Boshirovs. Although there are similarities between RT Boshirov and Visa Application Boshirov, they might not be the same individual; unless either or both had taken steps in the period between March 2018 and September 2018 to change his appearance. Also the airport images look to me like one individual who is probably Visa App Boshirov but the two Salisbury Boshirovs may not be the Airport Boshirov.

        RT Petrov is Visa App Petrov, but not the slighter frame individual of the other images.

        Simonyan said that one of them smokes and the other doesn’t; on this, I have no opinion. She also said that one is right handed, the other left handed: given the way each has used his messenger bag, I reckon that Boshirov is left handed. Together, PnB seemed to walk in a way that protected their dominant hand; often but not always (given an impressively small sample on which to make such an assertion!).

        One last point: the images issued by Met CT showed two men who were of similar height, weight and age. The RT men showed one of a far heavier build than the other.

        [I have written Visa Application but I might be referring to a (less recent) passport photo.]

        1. eleanor, fascinating that we can look at the same photos and see something different. Agree that the RT Boshirov doesn’t look like the same guy in the other photos (although I’m not seeing any difference in his appearance among those other photos). Yet, when I look at Boshirov’s lip lines and eyebrows, they are the same in all the photos. What I now think makes RT Boshirov appear to be so different is that he darkened his hair, eyebrows, and facial hair before the London trip. All of that would have faded and grown out by September. Add a modest weight loss and on first sight he appears to be a different man and the one of the two that caused more questions.

          I’ve almost managed to convince myself that there are two “Peskovs.” Visa and RT “Peskov” who was also present in Salisbury on 4 Mar, and Gatwick, Heathrow, and Salisbury 3 Mar “Peskov.” Other than appearing heavier and with an obvious upper body bulk, the Visa/RT “Peskov” does look much like the Gatwick/Heathrow “Peskov.” Beyond what appears to be different body types, there’s also a difference in demeanor. Boshirov’s demeanor is fairly consistent from the images through the RT interview. Visa/RT “Peskov” is more animated (particularly in the Dauwalder’s CCTV). Whereas, Gatwick/Healthrow “Peskov” has a more pensive quality.

          RT “Peskov” was quick to affirm that it’s them in the Met photos. Boshirov made no effort to back him up on that point. Both appeared to have studied some traveler’s guide on Salisbury before the interview, but that seems not to have convinced anyone that they had a genuine interest in it. If there were two “Peskovs” in the UK 2-4 Mar, it was to place Gatwick/Heathrow “Peskov” far from wherever he really was during 4 Mar.

          1. IIRC opinion was a bit divided, in his home community, about the identity of ‘Boshirov’.

            What I specifically recall is that one older ex-neighbour challenged the identity by saying that whilst the real-Boshirov looked directly at you, the almost-Boshirov ‘looked out at you from under his brows’. She had no doubt they were not one and the same, whereas her neighbours thought the shown images were just how Boshirov would have looked like when he matured into adulthood (and not all might have seen him when he’d last visited, several years ago).

            —
            What is also interesting is that I’ve not seen their approximate height or weight shown anywhere, and nor have I really seen how well they merge into a crowd

      3. @Rob – although the men look somewhat different in your collage, I don’t think it’s enough to say they’re not the same guys.

        @Paul I believe it’s the same jacket on Boshirov – just different lighting and camera color balance/resolution that makes it look different.

        Petrov is wearing a different winter jacket on Sunday than what he wore on Saturday and he’s not wearing either jacket at Heathrow. Did he arrive at Gatwick with a nearly empty suitcase so he could carry both jackets home in it?

        Both men are wearing different shoes and hats on Sunday versus Saturday. They mentioned buying shoes in the RT interview but not hats or Petrov’s other jacket. No word from the Met about where and when they made those purchases.

        The famous green backpack only shows up on Sunday in Salisbury and at Heathrow. Was it purchased on the trip or packed in another bag?

    2. A task for a “super recognizer” which I most definitely am not. That said, I’ll play.

      “Boshirov” – same guy in all but possibly the bottom right hand RT still shot. However, that last one could indicate a stone weight loss in the six months from March and a trick of lighting in the RT studio that made his hair appear much lighter; overall, a much less swarthy appearance compared to the other pictures.

      “Petrov” – same guy in first two pics on the top row and bottom left pic. The top right hand pic looks like the guy in the bottom two right hand pics and he appears heavier set and darker hair color than in the other three. The hair line appears too similar in all the pics to reject that it’s the same person. Unlike the “Boshirov” collage, “Petrov” appears heavier set in his Visa photo, March 4 Salisbury walkabout, and RT interview, and thinner March 2 and 3 and evening of March 4; so, gaining/losing weight in between the pics isn’t a possibility.* If this isn’t the same person, they would have to have switched visas (and passports) with visa photo “Peskov” entering and leaving (?) the UK on other than the March 2 and March 4 flights but in the UK as of March 4 for the Salisbury walkabout with Boshirov. That leaves non-visa “Petrov” missing from sometime after 16:00 on the 3rd in Salisbury until he appears at Heathrow the next evening. *Non-visa “Petrov” could have gained weight/bulked up between March and September and thus in the RT interview looks more like visa-“Petrov,” but if so, where is visa-“Petrov” and why the switcheroo?

    3. If I’m not wrong, the two Russians, when questioned by RT, didn’t deny that they were the guys on the pictures from Gatwick and Heathrow.

      1. That may not count for much, Inquirer:

        If they were the Salisbury visitors, they’d say it was them in the images.

        If they were not the Salisbury visitors, they’d still say it was them in the images (because the intention was to demonstrate innocence rather than deny the UK visit).

        1. You make me think of 2 things eleanor:

          1) Watch this 28 second video of Putin:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkijEv7SW9c

          Is that the face of a worried man or the face of someone who knows he is in control?

          2) It is starting to look like there may have been more Russians in Salisbury than we previously thought. I have suggested elsewhere that there may have been couriers to pick up Sergei’s possessions etc.. We now think that there may also have been ‘doubles’ of P&B. There is a very interesting comment from Boshirov in the RT interview:

          BOSHIROV: The cathedral is very beautiful. There are lots of tourists, lots of Russian tourists, lots of Russian-speaking tourists.

          Hmm… they seem to like repeating points they want to stress. Just how many “Russian-speaking tourists” do you think might have been in Salisbury on a wet and slushy weekend in March?

          1. He looked angry enough when MI6 – sorry Bellingcat – came up with the GRU identities – true or not.

            Russian handling of the affair suggests that there is something they don’t want to talk about – even if they did not attempt to assassinate Skripal.

    4. The Boshirov at Gatwick (2 March, top left) appears to have a clean shaven bottom lip.

      The Boshirov at Salisbury station (3 March, top middle) has a clear patch of facial hair under his lip.

      Here are higher resolution images of those 2 pictures:
      https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/AP/20180905/3705f521d5f44b5da00525581a6cd95d.jpg

      https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/AP/20180905/aac3aaa51bab443f82009180f64794c9.jpg

      Here is an image from the Dauwalders video (4 March) which clearly shows the facial hair below the lower lip:
      https://e3.365dm.com/18/09/1600×900/skynews-novichok-suspects-alexander-petrov_4413140.jpg

    5. It is worth watching the RT interview again and reading the transcript:

      https://www.rt.com/news/438356-rt-petrov-boshirov-full-interview/

      Very early in the transcript, we read:

      SIMONYAN: The guys we all saw in those videos from London and Salisbury, wearing those jackets and trainers, it’s you?

      PETROV: Yes, it’s us.

      Why did she deliberately ask if it was them? And why did she ask about trainers? The only picture showing them wearing trainers is the 3 March image at Salisbury station – on 4 March it looks like Boshirov is wearing brown shoes and Petrov has walking boots… but neither of them is wearing ‘trainers’.

      An even more bizarre passage appears later:

      SIMONYAN: Do you recognize your clothes?

      BOSHIROV AND PETROV: Yes.

      SIMONYAN: And now you’re wearing different clothes, right?

      PETROV: Yes, but…

      BOSHIROV: …we left it…

      PETROV: …in the wardrobe…

      BOSHIROV: …that’s right, I have that jacket in my wardrobe…

      PETROV: Those shoes were bought in England, the jacket…

      BOSHIROV: …well-advertized New Balance sneakers. We still wear all that.

      SIMONYAN: And you’ve got it all here, in Russia?

      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.

      Why is she asking them about their clothes? Also why the stress on “well-advertized New Balance sneakers” – in 3 March Salisbury station image, Boshirov is indeed wearing New Balance sneakers but this was BEFORE they went and did some shopping in London! What is this all about?

    6. That the RT guys are not the CCTV guys is clear. RT explicitely said (they put quite some distance between themselves and the two guys) that they insisted to be shot only from a certain angle. I also remember thinking that the interview was edited and cut.

      The CCTV guys seem consistent except “Petrov” in the bridge CCTV – this guy looks different but it may have been the angle from where he was shot.
      The “bridge” Petrov looks the same as the Dauwalder’s video, and he carries his cap in a way that makes him difficult to identify on CCTV which maybe intentional
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6138541/First-chilling-CCTV-two-Russian-novichok-assassins-Salisbury.html

      So yes, it is possible that the Salisbury “Petrov” is not the “Petrov” who walked with “Boshirov” through Salisbury.

      But British secret services claim that a third guy was involved – using Bellingcat as conduit I suppose
      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47246317

      1. So if we assume there was a third guy in Salisbury “who missed his plane”, this guy might have been present at the bench, met the Skripals in the park or whatever.
        Which makes you wonder for the umpteenth time what they needed the crazy door knob theory for.
        And why Russia confirmed the “two guys” story.

  83. The rags are reporting that Maybot and Putin may meet at the upcoming G20.

    The UK are feeling the effects of their Russian based “diplomats” being absent.
    Anyone like to guess what the quote below means?

    “Britain and Russia are examining the scope for a thaw in relations, including the possibility of a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the G20 leaders’ summit in Japan at the end of this month.
    If a meeting were to go ahead it would be the first encounter at this level since the poisoning in Salisbury of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March last year – an episode that led to 23 Russian diplomats being expelled by the UK followed by the expulsion of a similar number of British diplomats from Russia.
    The loss of the quality of the expelled British diplomats has severely damaged Britain’s capacity to analyse Russia from inside the country. Moscow also closed the British Council offices and the UK’s diplomatic outpost in St Petersburg.”

    Analyse from the inside….

    1. Duncan,

      It shows that the officials don’t believe their own story. If they really believed that a bottle was used and left around in Salisbury, containing enough nerve agent to kill 1,000s of people, they ought to consider it an act of war. And whilst *going to war* with Russia would be what’s called a VERY BAD IDEA, they ought — on their own terms — to have done everything short of that point. As it is, they are now talking of “a thaw in relations”. It should be put to them time and time and time again:

      “You claim that the Russian Government recklessly put the lives of 1,000s of British citizens in danger in a chemical weapons attack on this country using the most deadly nerve agent on the planet, and yet just a year or so later you want to want to restore relations with them. It sounds like one of two things. Either treason, or an admission that the lives of 1000s of British citizens were never in in danger. Which is it?”

      Rob

      1. Rob, perhaps we could approach this from a different angle. Launch a petition, demanding a HOC debate to question this return to normality after the egregious act of violence on UK soil.

        If the UK Blogmirers all wrote to their MP along the following line:

        “Dear valued Member of Parliament,
        As a concerned citizen I find it incredible that the UK Government is seeking to normalise relations with Russia, and return to full diplomatic core levels of operation.
        In March 2018, this same Russian state planned and carried out the most hideous nerve agent attack in the streets of Salisbury.
        We were lead to believe that 1000s of our citizenry could have died in this reckless and wanton disregard of societal norms.
        Secret agents from Russia were dispatched to execute Salisbury residents using the most deadly of nerve agents.
        I would welcome your comments on this matter.”

        1. Duncan, that sounds reasonable. But I believe the last time someone stood up in the House of Commons and urged the government not to rush to judgment, he was jeered and heckled by the apes on the benches opposite as a threat to national security.

  84. OMG..What derelict graveyard cemetery was Rory Stewart excavated from (who is was he)?
    Public School Chump (another one)
    World is laughing at Little Britain (UK)

    Who is manufacturing our defects as possible Prime Minister?
    Strange Haircut’s,Bad Teeth,No Chin,Fat or Puny with a very
    strange passed history.

    Should be a good “Thriller Night” Oct 31st 2019.

    1. Craig Murray commented on Stewart on his blog in 2009. Simple search in your browser. To be honest, I hadn’t made the connection between this Lawrence of Arabia figure from way back and the latest Rory the Tory sensation.

  85. If Tanker’s fully loaded would red waterline not be so visible. Is red paint a guide as
    how much cargo Tanker or Ship is carrying. Is it called Plimsol Line?
    I donk know. Would it be worth checking age of Tanker and Insurance details.
    Destroy an older vessel in a false flag operation and recover insurance rather
    than scrap value? Two bird’s with one stone is the idea?

    1. Lewis,

      I don’t think so.

      I have read somewhere that both ships might have been sanctions-busting by carrying oil or chemicals from Iran.

      This would give the USA a motive for disabling them.

      1. Cheers! Thank you for that. RT made a valid suggestion. Would they have
        Dayglow Life Preservers if doing a bomb planting mission. Would they not
        have military issue dark green,black?
        Frogmen like in 007 Films would be more convincing working under sea
        out of site.
        Very amateurish doing job in full view. Could they have been legitimately
        checking damage on hull or helping injured.

  86. What do we think really happened on Monday 5 March? There must have (at least initially) been 2 separate stories and they were not brought together quickly enough to prevent Sunday’s fiasco from getting totally out of control.

    The CCTV couple were (I think) part of the Russian plan and were carrying passports (or other authentic IDs) in the names of Sergei and Yulia. They were taken to SDH and admitted as S&Y on Sunday 4th, where they were treated for an O/D. WPD was not initially in on the hoax and began an investigation – the BBC’s 6pm identification of Sergie as a spy probably came through this channel.

    At the same time MI5 and The Met probably already knew that the bench incident had gone wrong and that the two people in SDH were not the real Skripals… but why then didn’t they kill the local investigation and stop it getting into the press? Why didn’t MI5 kill the BBC’s identification of Sergei? By Tuesday, when it was announced that The Met’s CT team were taking over, it was already too late.

    Was it simply the case that MI5/The Met were planning the response to the fiasco on Monday 5th and allowed WPD to continue their investigation? Without SDH declaring an external incident on Monday morning, it would probably not have attracted attention so quickly. That incident caught MI5/The Met flat-footed and they just couldn’t respond quickly enough… the rest is history.

    1. Why did you omit the mannequins from your tale? I remember you claimed that the “pair on the bench” had been mannequins.

      1. Yes Milda, that is still possible as I do not believe that Sergei was bundled into an ambulance in ‘the sitting position’.

        Unlike you, however, I am willing to consider other ideas too. I have no ‘sacred cows’ and again unlike you, I would like to find the truth about what happened. If that means other ideas have to be considered, then so be it.

          1. Milda,

            Also possible (or rather more than only possible) is that Paul earns his stipend from the government by sowing confusion, adding confused and confusing narrative” on confused and confusing “narrative”, one after another, and epeating ad infinitum, supporting his inventions using the Patented and Patent American Evidence and Authority Invention Method in lieu of proofs and proofing…

            1. Nobody forces you to come here and you don’t have to read my comments if you don’t like them. Since you do not know me at all, you are a complete fool to attempt to attack me instead of arguing against any of the ideas I propose.

              If you think that this ought not to be a confusing narrative and the TPTB have not been destroying all the proof and evidence that existed of what really happened, then you are in the wrong place.

            2. “Also possible (or rather more than possible) is that Paul earns his stipend from the government by sowing confusion…”

              Evangelista, this is exactly what I think.

    2. “The CCTV couple were (I think) part of the Russian plan and were carrying passports (or other authentic IDs) in the names of Sergei and Yulia. ”

      Ummm … if this is what happened, then one of them (the female) seems to have been carrying no ID at the time because although Sgt Hollingworth found the ID of one Skripal, the identity of the female wasn’t confirmed until some time later and via someone who seems to have been Yulia’s friend Gulnara.

      It’s noticeable that although she found ID, Sgt Hollingworth didn’t say that she was able to positively confirm the identity of the bench victim from any (photographic?) ID they were carrying. If Sergei was identified only via a credit or debit card found on his person, then no ID photo was involved.

      To find bank cards isn’t the same as finding a bus pass (Sergei? A bus pass? lol), driving licence or passport.

      Chuckling at own humour is bad form, I realise that …

        1. That the OPCW had access to photographic ID, more than two weeks after the incident, isn’t surprising.

          If there is a flaw in your argument, Paul, it’s that the female apparently wasn’t identified at the bench. Either the ID wasn’t located, by someone like Sgt Hollingworth, or there wasn’t any.

          IIRC the victims were taken to hospital separately, so once the female patient wasn’t linked to the male patient, SDH didn’t seem to know who she was (and despite there having been two bench victims).

          What’s puzzling me, in your version of what may have happened, is at what stage and by what process the identity of Yulia Skripal was established. IMO it was probably by probably Gulnara who was needed, to positively identify an image of Yulia from Yulia’s passport (or her visa application image); that being so, it doesn’t necessarily identify the body in the bed. The person, the photographic identificaton and the identifer need to be combined (this is on the assumption that the identifier isn’t shown a distressing image of someone hooked up to all sorts of life preservation equipment etc).

          Put another way: did the OPCW have access to the same official photographic ID documents as were used by Met CT (or whoever) to identify the female victim? From where was this official ID sourced, since it wasn’t being carried by the person who publicised descent was from bench sitter to bench victim.

          1. Sorry eleanor, I am not a buyer of that:

            Mr Cassidy said: “We had heard about the incident in the town and we didn’t know who it was, but my wife Mo said the couple who had been poisoned were Sergei and Yulia. To say we were shocked is the understatement of the century. I realised from that moment on it was going to be massive and it has occupied every part of our lives.”
            https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-sergei-skripal-and-daughter-yulia-should-be-allowed-to-die-11306692

            Now since the whole world knew it was Sergei by 6pm on Monday, Ross and Mo must have known earlier than that and well before Gulnara gets involved. Remember they didn’t officially announce Yulia’s name until Tuesday morning – but Ross and Mo knew who they were for sure. If this story is true, how did Mo find out?

            I think we have been fed a pup about who knew what and when. The police claim they knew who Sergei was on Sunday evening from a Google search… there must have been ‘numbers to call’ and somebody, I am sure, will have spoken to Ross. It is very unlikely that he found out as described.

            1. “I think we have been fed a pup about who knew what and when.”

              I realise that, Paul, and that is partly what screws up the way I think things through because it’s well nigh impossible to impose any real chronology on the events that took place.

              You’re also right, that there’s no way of knowing how or why Mo Cassidy seemed to know who was involved in the incident in The Maltings – other than the Cassidy family know far more than they’re prepared to talk about (quite right too). Perhaps they, and Gulnara, provided corrobative identification, who knows.

              Nor do we know when Sky’s interview, published on 28 March, with Ross Cassidy took place. In it he says:

              “”We’ve already been told they will be severely mentally impaired … ”

              By the time it was published, Yulia had officially regained consciousness and her Reuter interview shows a distinct lack of severe mental impairment … so who convincingly fed Ross Cassidy with the almost-worst case outcome, and when.

              Seguing deftly sideways, it’s also occurred to me that the so-called minder, who speaks in English at the beginning of Sergei’s telcon, might actually be Ross Cassidy. Minders are always gaolers.

              “Sorry eleanor, I am not a buyer … ”

              That’s fine by me, it’s often more rather than less helpful when there are more quibbles than nods of agreement. The fact that I then am too confused to realise how confused I am, that’s neither here nor there. Or there nor here.

              1. I ahve a few theories about who knew what and when.

                Firstly Gulnara is a total red herring – designed for public consumption.

                Secondly, MI5 knew in advance that it was supposed to be the Skripals on the bench! The problem was that it wasn’t the Skripals! Right name, wrong people.

                WPD knew about Sergei on Sunday evening and SDH knew before 6am on Monday.

                Basically everyone who need to know knew on Sunday evening but they didn’t announce anything until Tuesday morning.

                I bet Ross and Mo knew on Sunday too…

    3. Doesn’t it depend on when SO15/MI5-6 were on the incident and in command of it?

      While until recently I could only speculate that once Skripals name was entered in the WPD computer log that that triggered an alarm at SO15/MI5-6. Now we have one of the WPD officers publicly stating that they got an immediate “do not stop” response from the national computer system when they entered Skripals name. That entry would have been done by 6:00 PM at the latest. So, while the world slept and WPD dealt with a presumed opiod od, (and something was going on at SDH), SO15/MI5/6 had twelve hours to being crafting a hoax and another five hours to put together the major incident announcement,.

      Would UK authorities have acted to exploit such an incident without having confirmed the identity of the two patients? Sergei’s NHS records weren’t checked (prudent for medical treatment as well)? Yulia’s passport fingerprint would have been the easiest and most reliable record to check on and not as laughable as having Gulnara’s confirmation.

      If the two patients weren’t the Skripals but random Russian nationals, how would the Met know within less 24 hours that the Skripals were missing or they couldn’t find them? Would they risk having Sergei popping up alive and well in Russia after they claimed he was near death in SDH? If the Skripals were in UK or even US custody, and the fake Skripals were in SDH, Russians, why not let the fake Skripals die? (USG has a lot of experience setting people up with fake identities.) Many large holes in your hypothesis.

      1. “how would the Met know within less 24 hours that the Skripals were missing” – because the bench was MI5’s plan and they knew it had gone wrong by 5pm on Sunday. They immediately knew the people on the bench were not the Skripals.

        “Would they risk having Sergei popping up alive and well in Russia after they claimed he was near death in SDH?” – of course they would! That is exactly what they have done. They knew that Russia would not want to brag about it from the start.

        “If the Skripals were in UK or even US custody, and the fake Skripals were in SDH, Russians, why not let the fake Skripals die?” – how do you know that they didn’t let them die? We have not heard of the CCTV/bench couple since.

        I see no holes…

        1. “how do you know that they didn’t let them die?”

          If they were mannequins, they were never alive.

          1. Very true! But that is a different idea, to meet the descriptions of ‘Sergei’ sitting “motionless” and being bundled into an ambulance in “a sitting position”.

            We just don’t know enough about what happened between 4pm and 5pm at the bench. How many of the ‘witnesses’ are real (I am sure the answer is not all of them)? Were people allowed into the area of was it completely cordoned off so the public could not see what was going on? We still don’t have a single image from that time frame and we have had no new witnesses giving their account since the first few days – that is odd in itself!

            Why have we not had a constant dribble of new eye witness accounts? “I was there and I saw a woman with blonde/red hair on the bench”. “I was heading back to Sainsbury’s car park but the whole area was cordoned off and I had to go the long way around”. etc..

            Nothing… not a squeak…

        2. Paul, I see nothing but holes. You’ve got plans and plots inside plans and plots with some (undefined and for unknown reasons) going wrong and then new plans to fix whatever oops came along for one (all knowing and all seeing) side and the other (all knowing and all seeing) side adjusted or revised its plans.

          Is your starting point still that RF planned a covert repatriation of Sergei for 4 Mar? Did MI6 get wind of that before or after the incident at the bench? But let’s get out of the weeds for a moment —

          Do think or believe that Putin, Lavrov, and their associates and colleagues are really stupid and/or ignorant. For starters, Skripal was, for a lack of a better word, a ward of the US that transferred that responsibility to the UK. Thus, at any time a covert RU mission to repatriate Skripal was inherently a violation of the US/UK, and when it comes to Russia, the UK/US never miss an opportunity to blow up any such violation into an international circus. But your belief (Skripal in Russia), posits that Putin is far dumber than that.

          Consider how Putin/Lavrov have learned not to repeat USSR mistakes in the international arena. On 12 Dec 1979 the USSR responded to a request from the Afghan government for military assistance by sending in troops, tanks, etc. A disaster for the USSR for a decade until they left.

          On 30 Sept 2015 RF responded to a request from Syria with limited air strikes and other very limited assistance. Putin/Lavrov weren’t about to repeat the USSR Afghan error. Do you think that Assad waited until 2015 to ask for RF help? A ridiculous assumption.

          At the level of international affairs, the USSR was punished for going into Afghanistan. 1) US grain embargo – https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/07/30/The-great-Soviet-grain-robbery-10-years-later/5162396849600/ and 2) US boycott (friendlies followed US lead) of the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics. (Most larger countries want the prestige of hosting major international athletic events.) Retaliating by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics was not only weak tea, but more like salt in the wounds for their citizens, particularly as they were less hungry since in 1981 Reagan had lifted the grain embargo.

          7 Feb – 23 Feb 2014 – Sochi Winter Olympics. RU/Putin had a huge investment in making the games a success. (This was RF’s first Olympic games and only the second ever to take place in Russia.) The US did its best to tarnish the games by exploiting RU’s homophobic laws; as if equality in US law wasn’t of recent vintage (CA Prop Hate passed in 2008). Conflict was ramping up in Ukraine prior to the Olympics, but RF made no overt effort to intervene. 18 Feb Ukraine coup in full swing. 21 Feb Yanukovic goes missing. 22 Feb coup complete. (Have to give credit to the coup plotters for their timing.) 1 Mar RF parliament approves troops for Ukraine, Ultimately, had limited options as to what it could accomplish without risking a large scale western military response, and it delayed any possible assistance to Assad (who the US/UK/France had been predicting would fall and flee for years before then).

          18 Mar 2018 – RF presidential election. Creating an international incident can go either way domestically – a good reason not to do it too close to an election. (Carter lost in 1980.) But covertly repatriating a little known and mostly forgotten Russian traitor that would also enrage the US/UK would have made Putin look stupid. That’s not the public persona that Putin has cultivated; it’s strong, diplomatic and smart.)

          14 June – 15 July 2018 – FIFA World Cup. This award in 2010 was controversial from the beginning; so, there was always a cloud over it for Russia. Russia had too much invested in the success of the World Cup for Putin, et al to risk derailing it by creating a new international incident weeks before the games. One without an explicable purpose. And if there was some super-duper secret reason for creating it, it would have been scheduled for after the World Cup.

          One last point — Putin Sacks High-Ranking Police Generals Over Golunov Case
          https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/13/putin-sacks-high-ranking-police-generals-over-golunov-case-a65986

          Smart move — as would be the presentation of an alive and well living in Russia (and never Novichok poison victim) Skripal, if it were true.

          1. Thanks for that. I understand everything you are saying – the most critical point being: “at any time a covert RU mission to repatriate Skripal was inherently a violation of the US/UK,”. EXACTLY! I made a very similar point many months ago. It is why it is such a complicated story – a great deal was at stake and there was very significant risk for Russia and for the US. In fact it gets even more complicated because “The US” is not a single entity – many factions are fighting each other in a life or death battle… even without the Salisbury hoax.

            You say that my suggestion that Sergei is in Russia, “posits that Putin is far dumber than that”. I am not going to write an essay in reply but I totally disagree with you. Putin is not a gambler but he is willing to take risks when he sees no other option. His strategy in Syria has paid off because he correctly assessed the risk. His risk assessment over Crimea was clearly different from that over Donetsk and Luhansk. For now, it looks like his assessment has been 100% correct in all cases.

            Applying this to the Skripal case, there are many holes in the story before we even start! One of the biggest mysteries is why the US/ UK wanted Sergei in the first place. If we knew that, it might answer a lot of queries. It is thus inevitable that our ideas will also have holes – we are attempting to make a pan out of a sieve!

            Because of where the information comes from, I accept it as a fact that Sergei is now in Russia. I cannot ask you to believe the same and I understand that you and others will be skeptical about it. Fine! But given that I believe that to be true, my ideas are inevitably going to be skewed towards explaining events in terms of that fact.

            You and others will be able to find holes in my ideas – because I do not have the whole story. The same is true of all the other theories, holes exist in all of them. We simply do not have enough information and that is quite deliberate on the part of TPTB.

            As I have said several times, I think 4 March might well have been more about Yulia than Sergei. For some reason Trump/US military wanted her – I have no idea why. Sergei was actually a bit part player in the day’s events – the prize was Yulia. Now if you don’t accept that, the rest will make no sense to you but it is a binary choice – it is either right or wrong. If you allow the possibility that it is right, then it is conceivable that a back channel deal was done between Trump/US military and Putin to make it happen. The risks for Putin and Trump of such a situation are obvious – particularly for Trump who could not allow that story to be known with Russiagate in full swing.

            Would Putin take that risk? If there was some bigger strategic benefit in doing it, then I think he would. The bigger question for me is: would Trump take the risk? The cost to him if it had gone wrong was higher than for Putin! He must have needed Yulia very badly indeed.

      2. “If the two patients weren’t the Skripals but random Russian nationals, … ”
        If this scenario has credibility, the Market Walk couple (and maybe it wasn’t them, but another couple) decidedly were not random.

        Nor do I entirely dismiss the possibility that Gulnara may have provided (secondary) confirmation of Yulia’s ID, not least because the conversion of the curious incident into an outright hoax required that all info be sequestered and withdrawn from the public domain ‘in the interests of national security’. TPTB needed to know who knew what, as well as knowing who to gag (that seems to be pretty much everyone, apart from witnesses who were interviewed by journalists in the immediate aftermath of Sunday afternoon’s events.

        Incidentally, I’ve just been listening to this interesting programme on BBC Radio 4:

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005t9m

        1. OK, let me expand the idea a little.

          If (as I believe is true) Sergei had done a deal to go back to Russia, then it would have been the Russians who played all the key roles that day.

          Sergei’s trip to the cemetery could have been to drop off his possessions and the animals with Russian couriers.

          The car from The Mill and the masked people could all have been Russians, there to aid his escape.

          Since the Russians were ‘removing’ Sergei early, they needed to find the replacements for ‘the bench scene’… which means the CCTV couple were Russians too. In which case, the CCTV couple were certainly not random.

          MI5 thought it was going to be the Skripals on the bench… but it wasn’t. To do that properly, you need quite a lot of team members. Who knows, maybe P&B had a role too.

        2. eleanor: TPTB needed to know who knew what, as well as knowing who to gag (that seems to be pretty much everyone, apart from witnesses who were interviewed by journalists in the immediate aftermath of Sunday afternoon’s events.

          Agree, except we can’t be sure that even those media interviews were authentic or not pre-screened and cleared before they spoke to a reporter.

          It was 2018 — Gulnara was unnecessary to identifying the SDH patient. Plus, the authorities never claimed that Gulnara went to SDH; so, she had no ability to positively identify the patient.

          1. It’s important (at least in my case) to keep checking the paranoia monitor, Marie, and I’m not questioning the authenticity or the motive of any of the witnesses who publicly stepped forward before the D-notice(s) came into effect. Well tbh I might hang a question mark but I’m not challenging what they claim to have observed.

            That Gulnara had no ability to positively identify the patient is undoubtedly true, but she is somehow in the mix simply because it is reported (somewhere!) that she went to the police to report her concern about her friend; she did so from overseas; and she has more recently seemed to play a role as Yulia’s attorney for Russian disposals. When I consider that Yulia may have very recently changed both her hairstyle and hair colour, Gulnara’s confirmation that the visibly changed individual was indeed her friend Yulia may have been useful supporting evidence (plus, of course, it was another small but satisfying box ticked as Met CT sought to create a complete list of everyone and anyone who might be in any way implicated in the case).

  87. Here is the original statement issued by The Met on 11 April, 2018 ‘on behalf of Yulia’:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20180412074859/http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-302508

    1) The statement says: “I have access to friends and family” – really? Exactly who is the ‘family’ she is referring to? Father, Viktoria, grandmother, cousin Yelena… who else is there and how many of them is Yulia in contact with?
    2) The statement continues: “I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being.” – ok, so that rules out Viktoria and grandmother… and Sergei is in a coma, so “access to family” must mean cousin Yelena.

    But why is the ‘message to Viktoria’ part of a public statement… issued by The Met? It was less than a week since Yulia had phoned Viktoria, so why didn’t she just phone her again and tell Viktoria herself? Why did that have to go in Yulia’s FIRST public statement?

    It is all complete nonsense isn’t it? The statement was a knee jerk reaction from The Met to try to kill questions about why Viktoria was being denied a visa. It was simply for public consumption. It is a paper thin excuse because there really was no reason at all why Viktoria should have been denied a visa. HMG happily gave visas to P&B who they ought to have known were GU agents – so why was Viktoria consistently refused?

    Was ‘Yulia’s’ statement really sufficient grounds to deny Viktoria a visa?

    Was the real reason, the fact that Yulia was no longer in the UK and it was all a bit embarrassing? In fact, exactly the same reason that HMG denied Russia consular access… because they couldn’t?

    1. Paul,

      What reason did HMG give for denying a visa to Viktoria? My recollection is that it was the standard one that she “hadn’t got enough money to cover her stay”.

      1. Did HMG ever comment on this? I am not sure they did (but will happily be corrected if wrong). As far as I recall, it was always Viktoria saying she had been denied a visa and I am not sure she explained why.

        If it had been ‘funds’ surely she could have found a Russian newspaper willing to offer a guarantee for an exclusive story – or at least I would have thought so.

      2. Blunderbuss recollection is right, Paul.
        Viktoria even showed some of the HMG paperwork.
        My recollection even is that the Russian Embassy and RT wanted to pay for the visit. But that doesn´t matter.
        Fact is the visa was denied on only one ground : Viktoria should not speak to the Skripals.
        Nobody was allowed. Remember Ross Cassidy who wanted to visit them too but got no permission.
        As I said before : The Skripals were never treated as victims but as culprits !

        1. Thanks, Liane. In which case the ‘funds; point is an excuse, not a reason. They were not going to give Viktoria a visa because they didn’t want her in the country. But rather than that being a ‘punishment’ for the Skripals, I suggest it was because the Skripals were not in the UK and any visit by Viktoria would potentially have made HMG’s position even worse.

        2. Why was Cassidy denied access? Bailey’s family and the CC were allowed in (without protective clothing)

          No CCTV + public appearance or statement + no visitors to hospital + no consular access + no proof that Sergei is still alive + no calls to his mum + Yulia appearing on the telly without him

          = What?

          He’s dead? The Brits’s never had control of him? He doesn’t give a damn for his friends and family particularly his mother and wants to be the world’s most famous absent celebrity?

          1. The truth appears to be the Brits don’t have any influence or control over Sergei

            The official UK propaganda says he is a selfish egotistical pig and doen’t care what harm his silence and non-appearance does

          1. Hmm, it’s been sitting around here but I’ve not got round to reading Mark Urban’s book. Perhaps I should read Part 3, the final 95 pages; and then address the earlier 16 chapters.

            Sergei Skripal’s life, in 171 pages prior to March 2018. That’s rather a thin biography innit – I wonder if some earlier fluff got edited out so that more recent events could be included.

          2. And told nobody other than fiction writer Urban about their visit.

            Note Uban’s comment about Cassidy – described as a former neighbor who moved away in 2012 but remained close to Skripal. All other reports had the Skripals living in a rental house near Cassidy from late 2010 until January 2012 when the Skripals moved into a house they purchased.

          3. Paul quoted Urban’s book : “Ross Cassidy and his wife Mo saw her [= Yulia] several days later.”
            Thus, Ross and Mo Cassidy saw Yulia at the hospital, but “They were not able to talk to Sergei that day, perhaps he was not feeling well enough, or maybe because the police had still not done their initial interviews with him.” (p. 213-214) Do we know if Ross and Mo Cassidy saw Sergei Skripal on another day ?

            1. “Thus, Ross and Mo Cassidy saw Yulia at the hospital,” – only if you believe Mark Urban. I don’t believe him. I think this is fiction.

              1. Paul said : ” “Thus, Ross and Mo Cassidy saw Yulia at the hospital,” – only if you believe Mark Urban. I don’t believe him. I think this is fiction.”
                Yes, Paul, I implcitly implied “according to Urban”.
                Anyway, Urban says that Ross and Mo Cassidy didn’t see Sergei Skripal at the hospital on the day when they saw Yulia. It doesn’t contradict what your source said to you…

                1. I have to admit, I don’t think it is safe to trust anything Urban has said about this case. He was too close to Miller for him to be a trustworthy source. It is possible that he still works for MI5/6 and uses his job at the BBC to plant propaganda… which is what I think his book is (and also the SDH piece he did for Newsnight).

                  I do not expect Ross Cassidy to come out and contradict Urban’s account but as it stands, what Urban said is evidence free and goes on my ‘extremely unlikely’ pile!

  88. I think the Iranian boat was removing a temporary mooring point from the tanker after rescuing the tanker’s crew:

    “The stronger magnets are used for fastening large objects such as oil booms or other types of heavy diving equipment. They can also be used to create temporary mooring points for lighter vessels, for example, a survey boat, barge or similar, to the ship side or to the rig leg”.

    https://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/environmental/miko-marine/

    1. Highly likely, Blunderbuss.
      But why is there no public statement of the crew to the content of the video ?

      1. Liane,

        Perhaps they have made a statement to Iranian media but western media has not reported it.

    1. Duncan, since the statements of Fernando Arias Gonzales it is more than obvious that the OPCW cannot be trusted in ALL of their assessments.

      Quote Gonzales : In March 2019, I received the first indication that an internal document pertaining to the Douma incident, produced by a staff member could have been disclosed outside of the Secretariat. It should be noted that, the time of the FFM deployment in Douma in 2018, this staff member was a liaison officer at our Command Post Office in Damascus. As such, and as is customary with all deployments in Syria, he was tasked with temporarily assisting the FFM with information collection at some sites in Douma. The document produced by this staff member pointed at possible attribution, which is outside of the mandate of the FFM with regard to the formulation of its findings. Therefore, I instructed that, beyond the copy that would exclusively be kept by the FFM, the staff member be advised to submit his assessment to the IIT, which he did, so that this document could later be used by the IIT [IIT –Investigation and Identification Team].
      For now, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the impartial and professional conclusions of the FFM that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place in Douma on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorin.
      https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/06/Remarks%20of%20the%20Director-General%20Briefing%20for%20States%20Parties%20on%20Syrian%20Arab%20Republic%20Update%20on%20IIT-FFM-SSRC-DAT_1.pdf

      Gonzales misses the point that the OPCW made the assessment “dropped from the air” !!!
      This was NOT an “impartial and professional conclusions of the FFM” !

      1. Yes, OPCW is a poodle. It performs whatever tricks its master commands, both in Syria and England.

    1. Elements of satire, Duncan?

      It is not credible that Sergei’s house was not equipped with a CCTV camera.
      Excerpts from Urban’s book:

      “I got the impression that the ones he [Sergei] was closest to were ‘Team’, said without the article, those from the intelligence agencies looking after his welfare.He was evidently in regular contact with them, and had a special mobile phone that went direct to their duty officer.

      There is a special section within MI6, Agent Resettlement, or AR, that looks after the service’s old Joes. MI5 are also involved with the protective security aspects of this, it’s a joint operation.”

  91. Another good piece on the OPCW by Peter Hitchens:

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

    He concludes:

    “Now, as I wrote here almost a month ago, the OPCW is in turmoil again. A leaked document shows at least one of its expert employees had grave doubts about Assad’s responsibility for the alleged gas attack in Douma in 2018 (I believe there are other dissidents who dare not speak out publicly yet). It casts doubt on the legality of a joint US, British and French missile attack on Syria – supposedly in retaliation for this gas attack. Western newspapers and broadcasters, apart from The Mail on Sunday and the Independent, have only just begun to cover this. The French news agency AFP finally noticed it on Thursday.

    The BBC, to its lasting shame, has yet to touch it, even though the OPCW’s chief, Fernando Arias, confirmed it on a public stage to the BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner on June 6, in Bratislava of all places. See
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5MrA5r0Dc&feature=youtu.be&t=5942

    at about 1 Hour 40 minutes in on this recording.”

    1. This is the same video Liane linked below but if you haven’t seen it, it is worth watch 3-4 minutes (from where the above link starts) so you can hear the OPCW’s chief confirm that the Henderson report is genuine but “did not fit the conclusion” of the OPCW report.

    1. Is this why Dawns Inquest keep’s getting knocked back? So if Boris gets PM
      Job he can change events of history and tell more lie’s?
      Strange that Dawns Inquest keeps getting delayed to a time when a new PM
      will be in control.

    1. She’s actually working on behalf of one of the many organisations-in-exile trying to overthrow the Iranian government, Afshin Rattansi did give the name but I can’t remember which one. The curious thing with the petition her husband organised, is it never gave any details about why she’d been detained. Here’s a taster of the myriad of groups:

      https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/mek-iran-rajavi-cult-saudi-gingrich-terrorists-trump/
      http://countrystudies.us/iran/96.htm
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran

  94. UK Government statement on the Gulf of Oman incident, with my emphasis:

    “It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible.”

    The Foreign Secretary’s statement on the same incident:

    “I condemn yesterday’s attacks on two vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Our own assessment leads us to conclude that responsibility for the attacks almost certainly lies with Iran. These latest attacks build on a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger to the region.”

    It is almost certain that the UK Government likes to use phrases like almost certain and it is highly likely that they do so in order to befuddle people into thinking they have evidence when they don’t. It is almost certain that no other plausible explanation exists.

      1. I’ll stick my neck out and go even further – into a place where angels fear to tread.

        I’m now even a teenie-weenie bit more than almost certain, and I challenge anyone to get that close to certainty without being absolutely totally 100%+ certain.

            2. But, surely we can remove all doubt by resorting to the mathematical definition of a limpit,… er,… limit, and, by taking the process to the limit we can declare with absolute certainty, due to the definition of a limpit,… er,… limit that it is absolutely certain that the US,… er,… Iran did it.

    2. Bit awkward then that the Japanese media are not buying it…

      “Operator suggests tanker was hit by flying projectile”

      “Some crew members of the Kokuka Courageous, which was attacked twice in the major shipping route Thursday, have said they “witnessed a flying object” at the moment of the second attack…”
      https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/06/62ef3ac1628a-tanker-attacked-in-mideast-faces-no-danger-of-sinking-operator.html

      “Operator of tanker says sailors saw ‘flying objects’ just before attack”
      https://japantoday.com/category/national/Ship-operator-says-sailors-saw-%27flying-objects%27-just-before-attack

      Even The New York Times is running with the story:

      “‘Flying Object’ Struck Tanker in Gulf of Oman, Operator Says, Not a Mine”
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/world/middleeast/oil-tanker-attack-gulf-oman.html

      And as I mentioned below, the tankers were underway when attacked. Both were hit on the starboard side but at taht time, Iran was off the port side of the ships.

      It is highly likely that the US and UK are lying again – no other plausible explanation exists.

      1. To add to the hilarity, a report out this week adds to the list of known problems in the turkey that is the F-35. One of the more serious is that the stealth coating is prone to bubble and detach at speeds in excess of Mach 1.2 along with other structural issues. In addition, cockpit pressure spikes can cause “excruciating” ear and sinus pain and issues with the helmet-mounted display and night vision camera contribute to the difficulty of landing the F-35C on an aircraft carrier.

        Not the best of times to be trying to provoke a war…

        https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

        2. F-35 Dodo or is it Duck…bits are falling off. Gorilla Glue and Black Nasty
          is the answer. Black Nasty is gaffer tape by the way!
          Not a racial comment or accusation.

      3. Warning – satire.

        The “flying objects” could have been Molotov cocktails and only Iran could make such sophisticated weapons.

    3. ‘Almost certain’: in diplospeak, is that one level down from ‘highly likely’?

      1. Sorry Eleanor, that’s classified information… and to even speculate on official probability hierarchies is unpatriotic. Just believe: never question.

        1. There is no plausible explanation other than these nut cases are having a competition between themselves so see who can get away the most ridiculous false flag incident.

          By “get away with” I don’t mean convince the masses, I mean fool the POTUS.

          By “ridiculous” I mean;

          Russia attacks mainland UK with the world’s deadliest Nerve Agent that doesn’t work

          Assad air drops deadly poison gas canisters through the roof of a Syrian home with such a sophisticated guidance system that the make-shift fins remained intact and once penetrated the steel reinforced roof it was able to fly across the room and settle gently onto a bed where it released its deadly payload without harming any of the residents or chickens in the building.

          Clearly the Old School justifications are felt to be out of touch with what modern public
          aspirations eg

          Saddam has WMD, the secret intelligence says so but even if he hasn’t he might do one day.

          Gaddafi is bad, he may have given up his advanced nuclear weapons program voluntarily for very good reasons* but he is still bad.

          Both Saddam and Gaddafi gave up their WMD because of US/UK pressure, once completed the US and UK destroyed their countries.

          Iran had signed a nuclear deal with the US and stuck to their bargain, the US didn’t like and now intends to destroy their country.

          A consistent pattern has emerged but the justifications have got more ridiculous.

          * Libya had developed a functional nuclear weapon but had no reliable delivery system but the bigger impediment to possessing such a weapon was that use of or threat of use would have inevitably led to their sands been turned into glass by the US and UK.

          1. And the real reason that Iraq and Libya were both destroyed was to protect the reserve status of the US$.

            Saddam Hussein had already agreed to sell Iraqi oil in US$ or Euros. That had to be stopped, so the US invaded and the VERY first thing they did was stop selling Iraqi oil in Euros. “Only US$ accepted here!”

            At the time, Libya was by far the richest country in Africa. Gaddafi was planning to introduce a common gold backed currency for trading between African nations and to scrap the US$ for such purposes. All inter-Africa trade was conducted only in US$, no agreements existed for use of local currencies. Obviously that could not be allowed to happen, so the US, UK and others bombed Libya back into the stone-age.

            It wasn’t even about control of the oil. It was about protecting the reserve status of the US$.

            1. I might add that that is also the reason there never was a plan for Iraq or Libya AFTER the intervention. In both cases the only thing that mattered was protecting the US$ – what became of either country afterwards didn’t matter… as we have seen.

              1. The US is not “agreement capable” – nobody should ever trust them as they will walk away from signed agreements whenever it suits them (Iran nuclear deal?). Kim is not stupid and I am sure he will not fall for any US tricks – if the US thinks they can persuade Kim to trust them, they are more stupid than we think.

        2. Ooooooof … all my life, I’ve tried to achieve something.

          At last, I seem to have managed it. Not sure whether it’s entirely good, entirely bad, or some kind of crazed mixture. And I hereby choose to believe rather than question Miheila’s train of thought, because it suits my sense of self to do so.

          (Meanwhile, the first to point the finger of blame away from themselves ought to be of special interest … false fingers flying false flags etc)

      2. “I not quite sure but I’m 110% sure Bellingcat told me I’m 110% sure..thinking I’m sure”
        GPS guided parachutes are the answer for Homeless and Cocaine Induced
        runners for future PM #10. Helping Squatter Theresa depart and put Me (Boris)
        110% Lire in #10.

    4. It all looks like a UK “Trump appeasement policy”.

      This happened after Trump´s visit :
      1. Christopher Steele agreed to be interviewed by the US authorities.
      2. Sajid Javid has approved the extradition of Julian Assange to the US.
      3. UK backs US accusation of Iran being behind the Gulf of Oman incident.

      The next UK move will be backtracking from the Huawei deal.

      What does the UK expect in return ?
      Maybe Trump promised not to declassify certain RussiaGate documents which implicate the UK´s involvement. But has Trump ever kept a promise ?

      1. The UK is out on a limb here. Heiko Mass (German FM) has said the video is not enough to corroborate US claims; Nathalie Tocci (senior adviser to Federica Mogherini) said: “we need credible evidence”; while France has condemned the attack but not blamed anyone for it. Japan has gone further and has said the US version is incorrect.

        The US and the UK have lost international credibility – it is not good for the future.

      2. Earlier today (Saturday), Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the UK ambassador to Tehran.

        “During the meeting with Iran’s foreign ministry official, Iran strongly criticised Britain’s unacceptable stance regarding the attacks in the Gulf of Oman … No other country but Britain has supported America’s accusations over the attacks”, The Iranian Students’ News Agency reported.

        It is really not helpful when most of the civilised world is trying to get Iran to keep to the Nuclear Deal the US has already reneged on. Cui bono?

      3. Liane,

        “The next UK move will be backtracking from the Huawei deal.”
        Yes, it’s highly likely.

        “What does the UK expect in return ?”
        Nothing. UK government ministers just love being humiliated by Americans.

  95. BBC Radio4 6 O’clock News Friday June 14th.
    The loose cannon Boris is claiming his greatest foreign affairs success was post Salisbury in getting the “world” to expel the Russian diplomats.
    As everything else he goes near turns to mush I wonder how conniving he was in this success story?
    Haspel and Bojo – the dream team.

    1. “Haspel and Bojo – the dream team.”

      You may say so, I couldn’t possibly comment.

    2. Well perhaps he had to say that because everything else he did as ForSec caused offense. There was nothing else left for him to point to…

      1. The diplomats were expelled before any evidence was gathered

        In the event no evidence materialised

        As much as I dislike Mr Johnson I have to agree with him this was one of his finer moments, taking his buffoonery to dizzying new heights.

        But if he indeed felt it was his singular career triumph, why did he resign an not fight his corner back then

  97. Not so secret now

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7138359/SAS-turn-attention-Putin-British-Special-Forces-plot-shift-focus-ISIS.html

    The SAS have always has Intelligence and Reconnaissance roles before they formalised that arrangement in 2005 with the formation of a new Special Forces Regiment, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, their first mission led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

    Before that a substantial part of the role was undertaken by the Territorial SAS who just happened to have an Office and Recruitment centre in Salisbury, next door to Zizzi’s in fact, Sarum House. There was an incident there on the 7th March 2018 when ambulances, police and fire engines were called out because a woman had gone hysterical.

    1. https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x4873ebf05a18a771:0xd7f8c6a3a7c7410a!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/army%2Brecruitment%2Boffice%2Bcastle%2Bst%2Bsalisbury/@51.0699415,-1.7964993,3a,75y,296.61h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sTGEH7ZBF1unXYAQNNUU9ZA*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x4873ebf05a18a771:0xd7f8c6a3a7c7410a?sa%3DX!5sarmy+recruitment+office+castle+st+salisbury+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sTGEH7ZBF1unXYAQNNUU9ZA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifyNm27ejiAhWiVBUIHRvCABEQpx8wEHoECA4QCw

  98. Pompeo again:

    “This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.”

    Where have we heard this before?
    Putting a shell in the side of a ship?
    Sophistication beyond my comprehension indeed.
    Well only Iran could do that.

    3. At 3 mins 17 secs. it is claimed a drone was circling the bench… that was the only item in the video I did not recognise. It was claimed that this had come from ‘intelligence sources’. Does that mean anything to anyone?

      Apart from that the video is completely laughable.

      1. Wouldn’t be a Russian Drone would it. Spraying Novihoax as claimed by MI5
        in a Daily Bum Wipe Newspaper?
        If…Drones flying around bench they will be UK HMG Service Drones
        filming a hoax.
        Were Masked Aggressive Types flying alleged Drone/s
        Shame Holloway-Collins didn’t take hands out pockets and beet em down
        like wasps.
        Would Drone have CCCP-USSR stamped on it or BAE Systems UK?

      2. If I share my idea about a drone, will anyone be able to take it seriously?

        I’m toying with the idea that the bench incident was the UK’s contribution to what happened on 4 March, as suggested by others. Supposing the bench incident really was part of a post-Toxic Dagger excercise in real time, then this could account for:

        – a camera drone, filming what took place, and/or

        – a drone, administering an incapacitant

        – cctv being witheld, partly to hide the presence of drone(s)

        – Alison McCourt being on call, but not on duty, in the vicinity

        Don’t know what the rest of you think, but I think this is both fanciful and interesting.

        1. I found the original story here:
          https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/689609/Russia-UK-Sergei-Skripal-Russian-spy-poisoning-Vladimir-Putin

          But the drone was not what caught my attention. There are a couple of interesting quotes in the piece from a ‘senior source’ (stop laughing please!):
          “[using a drone] would explain the almost complete lack of an evidence trail.”

          and: “We are now entering the third week of this investigation and still know little more than we did at the beginning. The investigation may take months and we still might know little more than we do now.”

          No evidence trail? After 3 weeks? The Star’s reporter says:
          “The use of a drone would also explain why there were no eye-witnesses to the attack and no CCTV footage of the couple being poisoned.”

          So they had noticed the lack of CCTV! But they are also saying ‘no eye-witnesses’… well that completely rules out any sort of ‘walk-by spraying’ or other attack as somebody must have seen something if that had happened.

          I think that is actually very important, as it rules out several ‘theories’ about how the poisoning was done: whatever did happen, there was no attack seen by any eye-witness.

          1. Hadn’t seen that article, Paul, or at least hadn’t bookmarked it.

            But I had read much earlier comments about a drone, and mentally filed them under Possible (Improbable). My revised thoughts are in the same category except that I’m not thinking about a Russian drone but UK drone(s) used as part of a staged crisis event. Part of the security issue is that the UK would not want images of its toys in the public domain, whereas and as far as I tell Toxic Dagger was isolated by taking place on MOD land.

            As for ““The use of a drone would also explain … “, it uses a curious logic because there surely is good quality cctv footage with good views of the bench area generally, including all of what did and didn’t happen. This would include any witnesses and even unobservant ‘witnesses’ in the vicinity.

            I’m afraid I must have had a significant lapse in concentration during that earlier video link, or was distracted by what I thought I heard: namely that Yulia was pregnant with Fedotov’s child (category: Possible (probably highly improbable).

    4. Where was the picture of Sergei’s BMW taken?
      The video has a still photograph of his vehicle which I assume was taken after the 4th.
      But after the 4th it would be in the pound.

        1. Integrity Initiative International?

          Three Eyes – Two Faced – One Mission?

          (BTW this is not a comment about the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, about whom I have neither knowledge nor opinion.)

      2. This is what they currently say about themselves:

        “Ukraine Crisis Media Center was launched in March 2014 by efforts of leading Ukrainian experts in the sphere of international relations, communications and public relations to provide the world community with accurate and up-to-date information on the events in Ukraine, as well as challenges and threats to the national security, namely in military, political, economic, energy and humanitarian spheres.”
        http://uacrisis.org/about

        But I wanted to find out who funds them… the original version of their website is far more interesting:

        “On March 2, 2014 a new press agency named Ukrainian Crisis Media Center was established in Kiev, with headquarters in the Hotel Ukraina, where many journalist and television stations from all around the world have gathered. The UCMC is a news agency financed by, amongst others, George Soros, the Ukrainian transitional government and a Ukrainian subsidiary of Weber Shandwick, one of the world’s leading public relations firms. It was created on March 2, 2014, and already by mid-March around 900 foreign journalists, had registered for its services. The UCMC acts independently from Euromaidan PR, the “Official International Public Relations Secretariat for the Headquarters of the National Resistance in Kyiv, Ukraine”, and has an independent English-language website, YouTube channel and presence on both Twitter and Facebook.”
        http://web.archive.org/web/20150427132340/http://operation-gladio.net/event/ukrainian-crisis-media-center-founded

        1. Oleksiy Makukhin has taken over from Liubov Tsybulska as head of the Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre’s Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group

          “…a report titled ‘How Russian media foments hostility towards West’, published by the The Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation (a GMF project) and the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group of Ukraine Crisis Media Center comes in handy. The report states that TV is the most popular of media in Russia and an average Russian adult watches it 4,5 hours a day”.

        2. The creation of the Ukraine Crisis Media Center was a coup after the coup.
          There journalists were force-fed with Poroshenko´s propaganda, distraction and lies.
          Ironically the Center was placed in the Hotel Ukraina, from where Parubiy´s sniper shot at Berkut and demonstrators.
          History will give the Ukraine Crisis Media Center a privileged place in the hall of shame.

  100. The warmongering neo-cons certainly do not give up easily!

    The US now wants us to believe that Iran was behind the attack on 2 tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. One of the tankers was the Panama-flagged but Japanese-owned ‘Kokuka Courageous’ – it was said to be carrying a Japanese cargo.

    They really have not though this one through… Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is currently on a visit to Iran, he is trying to mediate on the nuclear deal that the US has walked away from. Would Iran be likely to attack a Japanese ship during Abe’s visit? What could they possibly gain by doing that?

        1. The damage to Andrea Victory was straight into a ballast tank! Apart from the fact that there are no blast marks, an explosive attack at that point of the ship would have been pointless – the ballast tank is intended to hold seawater and there is no vital infra-structure near that point. Andrea Victory eventually continued its journey without any repairs having been carried out.

          This time there were explosives and the US is trying to pin the blame on Iran with ‘highly likelies’! Who gains if the US attacks Iran?

          1. Today, we’ve seen a picture of a ship on fire but I’m not convinced.

            Last time, we saw a picture of a ship on fire but, after the fire was out, there was no fire damage.

            Are the pictures faked?

            1. Here is a short video of one of the ships burning:
              https://www.politico.com/video/2019/06/13/watch-oman-oil-tanker-on-fire-068281

              Freeze the image around 5 seconds.

              1) The scorch marks on the side of the hull extend 100ft (?) infront of the fire… how do you do that? The ship was moving when hit but it looks like the fire has ‘front-run’ the ship.
              2) there does not appear to be any oil/naptha escaping from the area of the fire – should we not see oil/naptha burning on the surface alongside the ship? This all looks very neat and tidy…

              I would prefer to wait for better pictures… for now, it looks like the images are real but maybe the ‘damage’ is fake.

              This is a real tanker fire:
              https://www.logisticsmiddleeast.com/sites/default/files/logme/styles/full_img/public/images/2017/10/18/Seawings_tankerfire_1.jpg?itok=Et6ki35q

              1. I think there is something burning on the surface of the water and the ship is sailing through the fire. The fire is very compact – it hasn’t spread out as it would if it were oil. Perhaps it is a jelly, like napalm.

                1. Maybe a small boat came alongside the tanker and used a flamethrower to squirt napalm against the side of the tanker.

                  Probably only a small quantity was used so it looked spectacular but didn’t do much damage.

                  The main thing would be to produce a good effect for the camera.

                  1. Here is some video of what the Pentagon says is an Iranian boat removing an unexploded mine:
                    https://twitter.com/PhilipinDC/status/1139346296341508096/video/1

                    If you read the comments it seems many people are not buying it. Among the problems:
                    1) Why would the Iranians use a marked boat in broad daylight? The Saudis (or any other US partners) in the region could also fly an Iranian flag.
                    2) Why isn’t the video crystal clear?
                    3) An “unexploded mine” and a couple of guys are just handling it? Reminds me of the old Derek and Clive live: “What’s the worst job you’ve ever ‘ad?”

                    I don’t think I have ever seen so many MSM outlets openly speaking about false flags – maybe they have overdone FFs recently…

                    1. This is one of the Tweets:

                      “When I first heard of this this morning, there was a report that it was the Iranians that rescued people off one of the tankers… Could that be what is actually happening here?”

                      In view of the number of people on the deck, I think this is a very likely explanation.

                    2. Look at the beginning of the video. It starts off with only four people on the deck and then the number multiplies until the deck is packed with people.

                      I suspect most of them came down a rope ladder from the deck of the tanker but that bit has been edited out.

                    3. Bloomberg has reported that the ship pictured in the video is carrying 25,000 tonnes of methanol. Methanol would instantly mix with seawater (like adding water to a whiskey) so there will be no surface slick at all. That being the case, what is all the fire damage down the side of the hull? I assumed that would have been from a burning oil slick on the surface of the water but if there never was slick, how did it happen?

                    5. Paul,

                      Obviously the “burning oil slick on the surface of the water” didn’t come from the tanker. I still think it’s consistent with my napalm theory.

                    6. MAJOR change to the story!

                      Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the Kokuka Courageous, said the vessel wasn’t damaged by a mine, but by some kind of projectile. He called reports of a mine attack “false.”

                      “A mine doesn’t damage a ship above sea level. We aren’t sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship,” he said.

                      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/u-s-says-video-shows-iran-was-involved-in-an-attack-on-tanker

                      Looks like Pompeo’s ‘smoking gun’ was a water pistol.

                      Also correction to cargo: it has 225,000 tonnes of methanol on-board.

                    7. The tankers were fully laden and outbound and the damage was on the starboard side. If the crew saw “flying objects” (a missile of some type?) which hit the starboard side, then they probably didn’t come from Iran. At the time of the attack, Iran was on the port side of the vessel….

                    9. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Both Trump and Pompeo are blaming Iran but others are not saying very much – Japan has already said it should not be used to justify any further escalation in the ME. The story is drifting away from the US version by the hour. It now seems the Iranians did pick up the crews, as they are all sitting in Iran… despite the US version initially denying it. Also the images the US released yesterday, showing damage below the waterline, have been debunked. There is no such damage on these two tankers.

                      You may well be correct with FLASH or similar. Questions are being asked elsewhere about the extent of the fire damage and how it could have happened.

    2. They saying Torpedo. I wasn’t aware torpedo’s can jump out of water and strike
      above waterline. Could be a Mine of some type?
      Lets see if ships hull plates are blown in or outwards.
      I got no knowledge on weapons but seems bit strange.

  101. Is it Joe Brand that’s now under microscope for a joke regarding
    battery acid rather than milkshake?
    PM can authorise murder of member of public and leave partner
    with life changing medical conditions.
    Why isn’t PM under microscope and custody?

    1. Were all these vehicles tested for traces of Novihoax before they were buried or was it just assumed they must be contaminated?

      Since there probably wasn’t any Novihoax anyway, I suspect the latter.

      1. Not quite correct, Blunderbuss. Omit ‘probably’. Sorry about being such a stickler for accuracy.

      2. The Air ambulance was taken out of service for fears of contamination after the Amesbury incident but it wasn’t for the Salisbury incident

        But the more strange aspect of that is the AA and flight crew attended the scene in Salisbury but they didn’t for Amesbury

        1. Alison and Abigail McCourt were not decontaminated neither were PC Collins nor Sgt Hollaway, they felt no ill effects and yet they were the real first responders that touched the “Skripals” and administered first aid

          But all those police cars (some used by officers that did not go near the stricken bench pair) and the ambulances (some not used to convey the patients) had to be put in a big hole.

          And there are people who still believe this fiction.

          1. Aircraft are more expensive to replace so we will
            airbrush that little detail aside.
            Don’t mention it….

            1. The aircraft and its pilot were effectively buried, not flown since the operator and pilots employer decided to go into voluntary liquidation shortly after the incidents.

              Then the fight recorder was analysed for some reason, perhaps because what it was doing on the 4t March 2018 was not responding to a medical emergency in the Maltings.

              The operator was obviously very unhappy with Wiltshire Air Ambulance because they shut up shop without giving them any notice, leaving the charity and people of Wiltshire without an aircraft for a little while. The charity were able to find a substitute aircraft but the one they own (but do not have the operators license) is now a very expensive unused asset that the people who donate to the charity are funding it to stay on the ground.

              Perhaps Salisbury Journal could look into that scandal too?

              1. Was missing paramedic ever found or is he/she still wandering?
                Very expensive pleasure flight on Sunday 4th 2018 but as I said
                we need to forget that little detail.
                Faulty transponder fuse will be blamed,bit of silver paper shoved
                in terminals I guess. Works wonders on special op flights.

              2. And don’t forget “Mr WAA”, Richard Youens, ‘retired’ as a trustee… so unceremoniously, it wasn’t even mentioned in the SJ! His CIA contacts probably went back to the 1970s when he worked all over the world in the film industry.

                1. Yes indeed,helicopters and film industry. Very James Bond but Bond
                  good entertainment.
                  Salisbury a flop. Haha Salisbury Flop, I not athletic but I just realised
                  what I said from school days.
                  I didn’t do Games,I was Fat Kid.
                  Just barged through High Jump. Rather play with my model railway
                  in loft.

    2. A spontaneous Victor Meldrum occured here, even if I’m not bald.

      Kudos to the comment by be_serious which reads:

      It still bugs me that they felt the need to scrap these vehicles yet we were all told to wipe down our belongings with wet wipes!”

      1. PC Collins did not even have a shower when he went off shift, he got straight into bed ab=nd had his kids crawling all over him in the bed the next morning. No worry about contamination there.

        The acting chief constable lied when he said all first responders were sent to hospital overnight Sunday and into Monday morning for decontamination.

        In fact the nearest Collins came to being decontaminated is when he got a call two days later (presumably when “Novichok” was said to have been used) and told to take all his kit, clothes, watch, wallet, everything he wore that day to the station.

        But this ties in with the lack of urgency to trace the duck feed children, to test Sam Hobson; and Alison McCourt not recognising the symptoms of Nerve Agent Poisoning despite her having co-ordinated the medical responses for the Toxic Dagger exercises. Identification of a Nerve Agent Attack is the singularly most important aspect to maximise survival.

        The evidence is there was no Nerve Agent deployed in Salisbury or Amesbury but the disjointed responses are meant to convince us that that is what happened.

        They failed miserable at everything except killing Dawn and maiming Charlie

        1. No cost spared on new ambulances or police cars but no money to help with Dawn’s funeral or Charlie and Dawn’s family life reconstruction.

          Despicable!

        2. Hey! It was a hard shift. Putting tape up then wandering around
          with hands in pockets.
          Awaiting scene setters gave him stress and headache.
          Wish I had a Job like that.

  103. Have I got this right?

    1) Before the door handle theory appeared, there were rumours in the press that the Skripals had been poisoned by something in a perfume bottle.

    2) The BBC guessed that Dawn had been poisoned by something in a perfume bottle before the bottle was “found”.

    It seems that some people knew all about poison in perfume bottles even before anybody was poisoned.

      1. To be exact, rumors were that Yulia Skripal brought the poison “inadvertently” in a perfume bottle.

        1. And that is another example where people’s fantasies might have written the story
          https://www.thoughtco.com/the-knockout-perfume-3299117
          “A scary story making the Internet rounds since 1999 claims that criminals in the U.S. and elsewhere are using perfume samples spiked with ether or some kind of “knockout drug” to render victims unconscious before assaulting them and/or stealing their valuables.”

    2. Blunderbuss, there were all kinds of theories in the press after the Salisbury incident, but I never saw any mention of a perfume bottle at that time. It wasn’t until after the Amesbury poisonings that the BBC’s Frank Gardner suggested that possibility.

      But another strange coincidence is that the Met found the bottle within a day of Charlie regaining consciousness. They never said publicly whether he mentioned the bottle to them when he woke up or whether they found it themselves. Either way, it’s strange that they hadn’t already found it when it was there in clear sight – on Charlie’s kitchen worktop. They had missed it during a week-long search of the flat since the poison was identified as Novichok.

      That timing looks a bit like that of the door handle theory. The Novichok on the door handle was reportedly first discovered a number of days before Yulia regained consciousness (the exact date isn’t known but it could have been nearly a week before). That theory was leaked to the Mirror on approximately the day she woke up. Within a few more days, both Yulia’s recovery and the door handle theory were publicly announced.

      In the cases of both Charlie and Yulia, it looks as if the Met waited for the victims to wake up in order to see if they would contradict a story about where Novichok was discovered. Once there was no disagreement from the victims/witnesses, the updates to the narrative got the go-ahead.

      Charlie messed up the story later, though, by recalling that he found the perfume bottle in a bin. That raised a number of questions, like: why was the bottle still in a bin that should have been emptied many times since the attackers supposedly disposed of it?

      1. 11th July 2018
        • Charlie regains consciousness and speaks to investigators for the first time.
        • He is told a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop in his flat containing Novichok.
        • His girlfriend, Dawn Sturgess, died on 8th July from Novichok poisoning.
        • He has been in a coma since 30th June as a result of Novichok poisoning.

        The Met tied up all the loose ends on 5th September (67 days after Amesbury):
        • Charlie told police he found a box he thought contained perfume in a charity bin on Wednesday 27th June. Inside the box was a bottle and applicator. He tried to put the two parts together and in doing so got some of the contents on himself.
        • During a search of Charlie’s home on 10th July a small box labelled Nina Ricci Premier Jour was recovered from a rubbish bag in the kitchen.
        • On 11th July a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop. Tests undertaken at Porton Down established the bottle contained a significant amount of Novichok.
        • Police release CCTV images of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov walking around Salisbury, six months after the Skripals were taken ill. The metadata showed the images were prepared on the morning of 9th May, four months before they were released.

        1. 1st May 2018
          Sir Mark Sedwill UK National Security Adviser punctured hopes that the police and other security agencies had pinpointed suspects but were withholding the name or names from the public. Asked by an MP at a Commons Defence Committee hearing if he knew the individuals responsible, he replied curtly: “Not yet.” Sedwill, who coordinates the work of the MI6, MI5, the surveillance agency GCHQ and others, did not elaborate but among problems that have hampered the agencies is a lack of CCTV coverage in Salisbury compared with London.

          Sir Mark Sedwill, an alumnus of MI6 (according to the Skripal book written by BBC Newsnight’s diplomatic editor Mark Urban), currently combines three roles – Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and National Security Advisor – which until 2014 were the work of three separate very senior Whitehall mandarins.

          4th May 2018
          The Met arrive at City Stay Hotel and searched the hotel on and off for four months, only three days after Sedwill’s comment.

          19th July 2018
          “Police have reportedly identified the suspected perpetrators of the nerve agent attack on the Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal. Detectives believe several Russians were involved in the attempted assassination of the former MI6 double agent and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March. A source with knowledge of the investigation told the Press Association: “Investigators believe they have identified the suspected perpetrators of the novichok attack through CCTV and have cross-checked this with records of people who entered the country around that time. They are sure [the suspects] are Russian.”

          Ben Wallace Minister of State for Security Tweets at 4.29am “I think this story belongs in the ill-informed and wild speculation folder”.

          6th September 2018
          The Met had been making regular visits to the City Bay Hotel since 4th May (4 months) without telling Silman Mir, the owner, the reason, before TV crews turned up on 6th September. The hotel never underwent any decontamination process.

          1. iirc, the dates the Met grabbed the P&B CCTV images were from May 3 through May 10. The detail on the various still shots exists on an Blogmire thread. Most likely from early September 2018. It’s possible that the Met was taking them early than May 3, but other evidence suggests that they didn’t and that’s approximately when they began honing in on them. Probably in conjunction with P&B’s visa applications. Yet in the subsequent four months, they couldn’t get them in close enough proximity to the Skripals.

      2. It’s an interesting idea about the Met who “waited for the victims to wake up…”. However, I would agree only on the Charlie case. It seems that with regard to Charlie, the Met learned a lesson from Yulia’s case. The tale of the door handle was made public when the UK government believed that the Skripals would die or be mentally impaired. But when Yulia was able to talk, it emerged that her knowledge of what had happened to her and her father was incompatible with the door-handle narrative. If her knowledge, as well as Sergei’s knowledge, had been in line with the door-handle tale, they would not be isolated as strictly as they are.

        1. Milda, the door handle story was actually made public a number of days after Yulia regained consciousness. She said she woke up “after 20 days in a coma” – so, 24th March. Late that night, the door handle theory was first mentioned in a leak to the Mirror, but it was not officially announced until 28th March. Only on the following day (the 29th) was the miracle of Yulia’s rapid recovery reported. At that stage she was already “conscious and talking”.
          https://web.archive.org/web/20180329175005/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43588450

          Charlie was released and allowed to speak because he probably knows very little about what happened to him and Dawn. Yulia, on the other hand, could reveal some details about what happened on 4th March that would debunk the official narrative. She was therefore only allowed very limited contact with the outside world.

          1. “She said she woke up “after 20 days in a coma” – so, 24th March.”

            At that time, Yulia had little option but to believe what she was told and I’m in no way disputing the sincerity of what Yulia said or wrote.

            Time and dates have been somewhat elastic throughout the Skripalgate affair and there’s no reason (or proof) that this detail is as strictly accurate as any other bit of info.

            1. eleanor, recall that she was in an induced coma, and/or sedated. She had to remain in that state until Mar 22 when OPCW took their blood samples. OTOH, DS Bailey only had to remain in hospital for that blood draw and was discharged on the same day.

              1. I agree with what I think you’re saying, namely that bringing Yulia out of her induced coma began as soon the OPCW samples had been drawn. There is a query that hangs around whether, medically, Yulia might have been brought around earlier. Similarly, whether the decision to put her (and her father, or whoever ‘they’ were) into a coma happened as soon as it was realised that the antidotes were failing to work, or after all three of the substance victims were hospitalised.

                All I’m really saying is that Yulia has a blank time span in her memory, which is explained by 20 days in an induced coma. Although it seems unlikely that the period was greater than 20 days, it seems possible that it was less than 20 days – and I admit I do not know how long it takes to bring someone that heavily sedated safely to full consciousness.

  104. PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
    12.06.2019
    Embassy press officer’s reply to a media question concerning the inquiry into the death of Mr Nikolay Glushkov
    Question: Does the Embassy have any new information regarding the circumstances of the mysterious murder of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London that happened on 12 March 2018?
    Answer: The Embassy regrets to state that, as 15 months have passed since this crime, the British authorities continue to disregard our numerous enquiries concerning course and results of the investigation into the murder of former Deputy Director General of “Aeroflot” Mr Nikolay Glushkov in the UK. The Russian side is yet to receive a substantial response from the Home Office…..

    https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6840

    1. “A judge ordered Aeroflot to pay the full costs, estimated at £5 million, of pursuing the ailing Nikolai Glushkov, 68, “to the bitter end” in what he considered to be a politically motivated persecution by the Kremlin.

      Aeroflot abandoned its claim against his estate just before the trial was to start in April. The judge said it must have realised the case “was doomed to fail in its entirety”.”
      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-dissident-nikolai-glushkov-killed-on-day-of-court-hearing-ngwx603cz

      Why would Aeroflot continue a case: “it must have realised was doomed to fail in its entirety”? Were their lawyers totally stupid? Did nobody think of trying to settle the case?

      What if Aeroflot and its lawyers had known for a long time that the case would fail but it suited everyone to let it run, because “a politically motivated persecution by the Kremlin” was excellent cover for someone who had actually been rehabilitated and far from being a ‘Kremlin critic’ or ‘Russian dissident’, was instead working for the Kremlin… and MI5 didn’t have a clue!

      What if that person was involved in the Salisbury incident and it was only at that point that MI5 realised they had been duped all along? What might MI5 do… and why might HMG then refuse to answer any queries from the Russian Embassy?

      1. What if, after several years of litigation Glushkov’s case was listed for a trial with evidence due to start on the 16 April, 2018 but just before 5.00 pm on Friday 13 April Aeroflot served a notice of discontinuance?

        What if Glushkov’s children (Natalia and Dmitrii) and civil partner (Mr Trushin) didn’t know what their father/partner was doing and believed that he had struggled to defend himself against what he had told them was a politically motivated campaign of persecution by Aeroflot and the Russian state?

        What if the judge, who had been sitting on the case for many years, was convinced there was never any possibility of the parties making any progress in alternative dispute resolution?

        What if Aeroflot refused to explain to the judge why it sought to discontinue the proceedings?

        What if, unbeknown to everyone except: Glushkov, Aeroflot and the Russian state, the proceedings had, in reality, been a complete sham since 2014? (Glushkov had been granted political asylum in the UK in 2010).

        What if, on 12 April, 2018 Pinsent Masons (solicitors for Aeroflot) had written a letter, to Glushkov’s children and partner, which the judge said was “shameful” and asked “many intrusive and hectoring questions” about, Inter alia, what they knew about the trial? What if that letter had demand a reply by noon on 13 April… 5 hours before Aeroflot withdrew the case.

        If all the above was true, Glushkov would have the perfect cover wouldn’t he?

        And if the Russian Embassy wanted to taunt HMG, might they have a scrolling red banner at the top of their website, noting how many days it is since Glushkov was murdered and how many days since the Salisbury incident… inviting the world to conclude there is a link between them?
        https://www.rusemb.org.uk

        Natalia Glushkova, believes there is a link. As The Guardian reported:

        “She believes her father’s case and the attack on Skripal – which the government blames on Moscow and has had greater media attention – could be linked. “Skripal’s case was very loud. If you want something to go unnoticed you make a firework,” she said.”
        https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/11/nikolai-glushkov-daughter-appeals-witnesses-murder-natalia-glushkova

  105. IMPORTANT !

    On June 6, 2019 there was the GLOBSEC 2019 Bratislava Forum.
    The topics : „Fuel to the Fire: Weaponising Islam in Europe“ and
    „Cloak & Dagger: Enhancing the Resilience of Societies“.
    Cloak & Dagger was moderated by Frank Gardner, BBC Security Correspondent.
    The four guest speakers also included Fernando Arias Gonzales, Director General OPCW, and Daniel Milo, Head of GLOBSEC.

    They made some very interesting comments on the Skripal case.

    1:01:50
    Question Frank Gardner about „hybrid threads, hybrid warfare“.
    Answer Daniel Milo, Head of GLOBSEC, that it´s done by state and non state actors.
    Frank Gardner asked for an example and Daniel Milo speaks about Salisbury and Amesbury.
    Daniel Milo said that Novichok was used and that Russia (state actor) is to blame.
    „This attack was intended to send a message to Sergei Skripal and to punish him for speaking to UK authorities and to deter others to do the same.“

    1:03:40
    Frank Gardner asked Fernando Arias Gonzales, Director General OPCW :
    „What keeps you awake at night“.
    Gonzales : „New chemicals, as the Novichok you mentioned before, are there. And we are aware that with milligrams, I repeat, milligrams, of some chemicals as Novichok family, it´s a very big family, it´s a nerve agent and with milligrams all the people who are in this room can be killed in the matter of seconds, easily.“

    1:30:45
    Frank Gardner explains what happened in Salisbury. He definitely blames Petrov and Boshirov for carrying out an assassination attempt on the Skripals.
    Daniel Milo said the Kremlin´s disinformation campaign has muddied the waters and to a certain extend it was successful.

    1:36:10
    Frank Gardner said the UK has blamed Russia and asked Fernando Arias Gonzales how far he would go in his assignment of blame.
    Gonzales said he can only confirm what Porton Down and the British police found.
    „The conclusions, not to blame, not assign responsibility, but the conclusions are that a certain chemical of the family of Novichok was used in Salisbury and also the remains of that were in Amesbury.“

    1:38:00
    Daniel Milo claimed Milos Zeman made the statement that the Czech Republic also produced Novichok only to support the Russian disinformation narrative.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5MrA5r0Dc&feature=youtu.be&t=5942

    Fernando Arias Gonzales, Director General OPCW, said some very enlightening things about the Salisbury “special” Novichock :
    1. He speaks about Novichok as a „new chemical“ !!!
    2. He says Novichok is a very big family.
    3. He says the „new chemical“ Novichok can kill in seconds !!!

    Gonzales has dug an deep hole for the OPCW by speaking about the Henderson report.
    I´ve posted it here :
    http://www.theblogmire.com/the-sinking-credibility-of-the-organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons/#comment-29089

    1. I am not sure about just digging a hole – Gonzales has buried the OPCW. He just confirmed that the Henderson report is 100% authentic – a totally genuine OPCW report, from someone on the ‘fact finding’ mission, was left out of the OPCW’s overall conclusions… because it did not fit the narrative the OPCW had already decided upon.

      The missile attack from UK/US/Fr was 100% illegal – and people knew this at the time.

    2. “1:30:45
      Frank Gardner explains what happened in Salisbury. He definitely blames Petrov and Boshirov for carrying out an assassination attempt on the Skripals.”

      At 1:31:40 Frank Gardner ridicules P&B’s story that they visited Salisbury to see the Cathedral. But he has never said anything about an unbelievable prediction that he himself made last year:

      “The item – or possibly items – are thought to be something found and touched by the pair, possibly something as innocuous as a perfume bottle or other luxury toiletry.”
      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44733873

      Frank was able to correctly guess on 6 July that the weapon was a perfume bottle filled with Novichok – even though it took the Met another five days to find it in Charlie’s kitchen.

    3. “„This attack was intended to send a message to Sergei Skripal and to punish him for speaking to UK authorities and to deter others to do the same.“

      Good grief! That motive was first floated within a few days of the incident. We’re to buy into the notion that a swapped spy isn’t debriefed (tells all) to the whoever has assumed responsibility for the future care of their spy and that Russia/Putin are completely unaware of that convention. Also that Russia/Putin waited eight years to act. As Craig Murray helpfully informed the public, it’s “hands off” on all swapped spies for the very good reason that it would end any future swaps with the country that violated that implicit agreement.

      1. “This attack was intended to send a message to Sergei Skripal and to punish him for speaking to UK authorities and to deter others to do the same.“

        This might have been plausible had it happened seven years earlier, or not too long after the spy swap.

        For this to have been a realistic interpretation for a 2018 attack, either something else was or had been going on in Sergei’s professional life in the very recent past; or the propaganda fountain is in action.

        In the light of the intentional, almost complete and ongoing suppression of what happened, staged or otherwise, on 4 March, I’m inclined to choose the latter option.

        1. or the propaganda fountain is in action.

          Seems that simple to me. But others are having so much fun with all the (exceedingly remote, IMO) possibilities of Skripal being engaged in field work for MI6 since 2010.

  106. itv4 Professionals [CI5] episode called “Dead Reckoning”
    Just watching but very strange regarding Salisbury Hoax.
    Russians,Bulgarians,Father-Daughter,Strange Chemicals
    D Notices and Funny Poking Umbrella Thingy [In A Lift] 🙂
    Made me chuckle but?
    Classic tv with [CI5] Professionals. Strange but true?

      1. I don’t think I understand what you mean, anidea, but the Dead Reckoning episode (series 3, episode 4) was first transmitted in the UK nearly 40 years ago (on 17 November 1979).

        Wasn’t the cold war coming to an end at around that time?

        1. Not that those in the US (including the CIA) were aware of. And it was only in the late 1980s that the USSR suddenly called for end on their side. Left the west, particularly the US, flat-footed and not accepted by all the cold war warriors who have been working ever since to restart it. (The WoT just didn’t do it for those guys.)

          1. You’re probably right, maybe it was only me who felt that the threat of nuclear armageddon had receded by the end of the 70s … so for me it was all the more surprising when When the Wind Blows was published in the early 80s (but pre-Chernobyl).

        2. :-))

          Thanks. I thought this was a new thing. So this has been sleeping in the British collective mind for quite a while?

  107. If Sergei was planning on leaving why did he purchase parking ticket for car
    at Sainsbury.
    Did what ever plan was happen sooner than Sergei expected?
    All became a double bluff with Sergei Yulia getting separated.
    Hence “The Great Salisbury Hoax” MI56 CIA treading on each others toes.

    1. Pure speculation but I would have thought the general instruction to Sergei would have been “behave normally and do not draw ANY unwanted attention to yourself”. Or it might have just been force of habit – it would have been a deliberate act not to buy one.

      In passing, how do we know he did buy one? Where is the CCTV of Sergei at the ticket machine? Releasing those images would surely not have been a security risk… would it?

      1. Good Point! Yes force of habit maybe. I only assumed a ticket was
        purchased due image of machine being covered by CSI at Sainsbury’s.
        Could this action be another bluff in bigger picture for Hoax effect?
        Wonder if records of ticket sales available for Sunday 4th March from
        Sainsbury?

        1. I believe one of the discrepancies pointed out early on is that a parking ticket is not necessary on a Sunday for that high-rise carpark. Put me right if I’m mistaken.

          2. I believe that the ‘Sunday free parking’ only started sometime after the ‘incident’. On 4 March, 2018, payment was required.

  108. What were Sergei and Yulia doing on Sunday morning?

    How about moving suitcases and other possessions as well as the animals?

    They knew they were leaving that day so a rendezvous in the cemetery car park (where I believe there are no cameras) or somewhere close, is how they moved the things they wanted to take with them. Do we know if there was a cordon in the cemetery car park or only at the grave side?

    What is the betting that as well as Sergei, the Monday afternoon flight to Moscow had: 2 cats, 2 guinea pigs and Sergei’s possessions onboard?

      1. The real @anidea used to have some interesting and intelligent things to say… then you came.

          1. fake@anidea

            If you are going to impersonate people at least spell their name correctly!

            If you don’t like my posts, don’t reply to them. Simple!

            You seem absolutely determined to make an utter fool of yourself.

  109. @Anonymous-1

    In your post: June 11, 2019 at 8:47 am, you say:

    “The people we’ve spoken to described them as being smartly dressed and Sergei was not wearing a leather jacket.”

    I didn’t read that carefully the first time and only now realise what you said!

    You have spoken to witnesses who saw Sergei and Yulia on 4 March? Can you say more? Where did the witnesses you have spoken to see them? At what time did your witnesses see them? What were they wearing? Did your witnesses see Yulia with a red bag? etc. etc.

      1. If you get an answer here now, you can’t even be sure it is the same anonymous answering it.

          1. As proof, Paul, I could be the real @anidea. After all I’m using that name on this post. At least I know I’m not the one who keeps posting drivel.

  110. Mirror report dated 24 March 2018 (updated 25 March 2018):

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-children-taken-hospital-after-12245559

    contains this statement:

    “Philip Ingram, a former military intelligence officer, said: “It means there could still be someone out there with a pot of this stuff. It could be anywhere – it might have been left at a station or chucked over a fence into a school.”

    How did he guess (in March 2018) that “a pot of this stuff” was going to turn up in June 2018 and poison Dawn and Charlie?

    1. It’s almost as if … the narrative was developed after earlier speculation. Sow lots of speculative seeds sown so that there’d be plenty of narrative options.

      Nah, they’d never do that, would they …

      1. Of course not, but if they did, here is a possible scenario:

        A policeman saw two men behaving suspiciously and followed them. At this stage, the policeman knew nothing about the Novihoax scam. The two men realized they were being followed so they split up and ran. They both got away but, out of sight of the policeman, one of them threw a bottle of Novihoax over a fence so that he would not be caught with it. The two men later reported what had happened to MI56 so MI56 knew there was a bottle of Novihoax lying around. Attempts to find the Novihoax were unsuccessful but, several weeks later, a member of the public found it and put it in the charity bin. How about that?

        4. a) the member of the public would remember
          b) stuff lying around for a few weeks in wet weather does not look like anything you can put in a charity bin.
          But maybe it was a bin, not a charity bin. But still, the member of the public would remember. And the place the member of the public found it would be close to the bin.
          https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7183276/novichok-poisoning-perfume-bottle-found-charity-collection-bin/
          Catherine Street seems to be way off from Skripals’ route through Salisburg, the station or any place of interest in the case.

            1. Something else else (sic): to have been in a charity dumpster means that the item has been sorted by the charity shop staff, and then chucked out.

              Otherwise any random litter bin would have done. Ordinarily, no-one makes a point of disposing an unwanted item into a charity shop bin for items the shop has rejected.

                2. Not sure on that one? Charity Bins around my area are at rear of shop
                  and for items that are not selling,damaged or other fault.
                  They don’t have donation bins but it could be different in other areas.

                  1. You are correct – these were big flip-top commercial wheelie bins for rubbish. They were positively not ‘donation bins’.

                    1. If someone is desperate hiding evidence they chuck item in any bin.
                      I believe the fake box bottle was deliberately placed for Charlie to find.
                      Bins would have been emptied changed between March June.
                      If fake stuff had been discarded in March it would be at bottom of bin
                      under a lot of rubbish other items if bin was left until June.
                      Someone had the knowledge Charlie looked in bins rear of Charity Shops
                      and planted fake item or as stated it was planted in his jacket pocket.
                      The bin story could well be another Hoax covering action of planting
                      item in Charlies jacket pocket?

                    2. Agreed. The basic contract operated by that waste disposal company was one bin per week. There was no option to change that by making it once a fortnight etc., all you could do was add extra bins – the charity shop appears to have had a ‘2 bins per week’ contract. If you filled your bins early, extra collections could be arranged by phone, for when a collection truck was in the area. The fake bottle was either planted, by HMG, in the bin for Charlie to find or, more likely, was just planted on Charlie.

                    3. There was a domestic wheel bin that had been put out at the front of no. 47

                      If it had been the door handle and if it had been Novichok they would get rid of the container immediately but as Charlie’s was sealed in thick plastic that wasn’t used AT CMR

                    4. For someone to salvage something from a dumpster, the item has to be near the top – otherwise it probably couldn’t be easily reached.

                      As for the wheelie bin close to 47CMR: that seems to have been put out by the household at 46CMR, ready for the regular Tuesday collection.

                      Dear Reader (thank you!), you’ll have guessed that my opinion on this rubbish stuff aligns with Paul and LOL, and I think anidea is mistaken about how the term ‘charity bin’ is used.

                    2. That’s a donation bin for clothes and shoes in need of recycling, and it’s nowhere near a charity shop.

                      An out-of-town supermarket near here has a recycling centre in one corner of its carpark. It has recycling bins in different colours, for different categories of recycling. Ditto local tip.

                      I seem to know a lot about rubbish. Please do not comment unkindly on my skills set, everyone’s got to be good at something ;~)

                3. You’ll need to revise your understanding of the term ‘charity bin’, anidea, because it (and only imho) is not a donation bin. Dumpsters are the bins bought by commercial / business organisations, and into which they place discarded, unwanted or rejected materials; invariably, they are at the back of the premises.

                  AFAIK it is probably as illegal to take stuff from a dumpster as it is from a skip, as to do so will be in breach of some bye-law or other. Despite the law, there’s a long established practice of people salvaging stuff from bins and skips because one person’s junk, junked builder’s rubbish, and especially charity shops’ discards are quite often re-useable treasure.

                  These are the bins which are emptied on a regular basis but, as I now read here, not necessarily by the local council (scroll down to the dropdown about commercial waste):

                  http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/hazardous-clinical-waste

                  Think of this post as a kind of red herring or displacement activity because, other than what’s been reported, there’s no way of knowing when or how frequently the dumpster in question was emptied. And certainly no way whatsoever of knowing whether said dumpster really was guilty of harbouring the toxic Premier Jour.

                  1. There was this mention in the Guardian recently
                    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/19/skripal-poisoning-suspects-received-mystery-phone-call-following-attack

                    ““The bin where the bottle was found was regularly emptied, so it seems inconceivable that it had been there since March,” the source said. “There is also some confusion about whether the bottle was sealed when it was found.

                    “That is the reason why the CPS could not consider murder charges against the two Russian agents. The police cannot be completely sure the bottle of novichok that poisoned Dawn Sturgess was used against the Skripals.”

                    In a statement, the Metropolitan police said: “We do not know where the two suspects disposed of the novichok they used to attack the front door of the Skripals’ address, where Dawn and Charlie got the bottle that poisoned them, or if it is the same bottle used in both poisonings, and this remains the case… we don’t know if it will ever be possible to confirm if they are from the same batch.””

                    1. “The police cannot be completely sure the bottle of novichok that poisoned Dawn Sturgess was used against the Skripals.”

                      Even taken at face value, this is curious. If Charlie Rowley is to be believed, the scent package was wrapped in either cellophane or heavy duty polythene and by implication it was unopened.

                      Such an item really is unlikely to have been used in March, professionally resealed, and then used again in June.

                      It’s equally improbable that the Premier Jour was chucked in the charity dumpster in March, and repeatedly fell to the bottom of the dumpster each time the contents were emptied, until sometime in late June when it somehow rose to the top of the nearly full bin.

                      Or what might have made it adhere to the inner side of the bin, for three months?

                    2. I think Peter said some time ago that Charlie isn’t even sure that he did find it in the bin – more like: ‘he thinks he might have done’. The bins could be a red herring (an idea put into Charlie’s head by HMG)… because if Charlie can’t say where he found it, then it is very possible that the box ‘wrapped with thick plastic like a pack of bacon’, was slipped into Charlie’s pocket… and that would raise a lot of questions.

                    3. The question really is – was it thrown into the bin to disappear into some huge rubbish dump or was it dumped with the intention to be used by some unlucky outcast.

                      If it was processed by the charity shop to be discarded there was evil intention, if someone accessed it easily from the back of the shop there might not have been.

                      The Met is not talking really and journalists aren’t asking them.

                    4. ” … was slipped into Charlie’s pocket… and that would raise a lot of questions.”

                      It does indeed, Paul, and not least why Charlie was wearing a jacket during one of the hottest summers on record.

                      (However I do concede that he might have worn a jacket to carry the swag on days when he went dumpster diving.)

                    5. Sorry, meant to add that imo Charlie has been told that he must have found the scent in the dumpster and, sorry mate, that’s because you can’t remember how else you came by it.

                      This is a better option than having to be told that it was planted in his jacket etc.

                      In other words, he’s had a false memory planted on him and, even after having shaken his head disbelievingly several times, it still doesn’t ring true.

                    7. Another way of looking at it was that the opportunistic narrative team finally found a vulnerable Salisbury couple, one of whom succumbed and died. Sadly, that then was converted into the collateral victim story.

                      If, in those balmy days of heat, booze and substances, memories are hazy, so much the better. It’s still circumstantial that what was allegedly found in a charity bin, and later turned up on a worktop in Amesbury, was actually the scent sample that Charlie gave to Dawn, to lethal effect.

                      My hunch is that not only did poor Dawn die but Charlie’s recollections of it all are still hazy and surreal. Both in their way are victims of Skripalgate rather than Novichok.

                      Charlie might do well to ask himself how often he’s found himself in possession of stuff, with no recollection of where it came from. If the answer is ‘often’, then this argument is a dead duck. IMO people tend to notice that they’ve lost things, without knowing how or when (the culprit being a four-fingered mouse) but not the other way round.

          2. a) the member of the public might prefer not to remember.
            b) the fake Novihoax package DID look as though it had been lying around for a few weeks in wet weather. The picture in the Sun article is of the fake fake Novihoax bottle.

        5. It is all good except for the bit about the policeman – a policeman actually on the streets is just too far fetched.

      2. Of course they would.

        https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/movie-plot-the-rock-inspired-mi6-sources-iraqi-weapons-claim-chilcot-report

        “An allegation in an MI6 report about Iraq’s supposed chemical weapons capability before the 2003 war to remove Saddam Hussein appeared to have been lifted from a Hollywood film, according to the Chilcot report.

        A section of the inquiry’s findings about the build-up to the conflict in the autumn of 2002 found that MI6, formally known as the Secret Intelligence Service or SIS, feared a source might have taken inspiration from The Rock, a 1996 thriller starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage.”

        But this is about a “source” using cinema as inspiration and MI6 caught on to it.

  111. The most glaring omission in this story is obviously an official statement by Sergej and Yulia Skripal to a British court on what happened that day.

    And Sergej Skripal is alive and clearly able to talk as Victoria’s phone message proves.

    1. There is zero evidence that Sergei is alive and able to sell his house.

      How do you think you would sound with a hole in your throat?

      WhatsApp, Facetime. Telegram etc, why can’t he call with those and prove to his family he is alive?

      Why the deliberate intent to create mystery?

      Why your unswerving obedience to believe a story in the press when you reject so many others with abuse and ridicule?

        1. The Russian government isn’t satisfied, they want their legal right to Consular Access.

          Why would this be refused?

          1. Its very easy; allow the Consular representative(s) to see and hear the Skripals and if they wish tell the Russian Officials that they do not want anymore communication then that is the case closed.

            At the moment we have to take HMG’s word that they are alive and free to do what they want however we have proof that HMG has lied multiple times regarding this affair.

            The only logical reason for HMG to refuse Consular access is because they can’t

            1. It is amazing that the Russian Ambassador manages to keep a straight face every time he asks. Were it not for the fact that Dawn is dead, it would be very funny.

  112. If P&B had been involved would we not be shown cctv footage of them both
    around Zizzi’s & Mill Public House.
    This would surly strengthen case against them but we have nothing.
    Just images of both in Salisbury window shopping.
    P&B have both been setup in a hoax plan to be in Salisbury around set dates.

    1. We haven’t seen where they went in Salisbury on Sun 4th except for Fisherton Street and the station but more importantly we were shown nothing of their Salisbury activities on the Sat 4th.

  113. The anniversary of Dawn’s and Charlie’s poisoning and Dawn’s death is looming, it will be an extremely difficult time for Dawn’s family, Charlie and loved ones.

    They still have noanswers.

    Why, who and with what?

    We are asked to believe that Dawn was killed by a totally bloody useless Battlefield Nerve Agent that only kills 20% of its prey and then only after 3 to 12 hours.

    Why would anyone use that poison?

    Why leave it in a sealed consumer item knowing when found (not if) it would likely be unsealed and fulfil its purpose?

    The poison we were told could only have come from Russia, we now know that is a categorical lie.

    Why did HMG lie? Why do they continue to lie? What is the Truth?

    HMG know the Truth but they won’t tell the family, they can’t because prison time awaits those that planned, executed and covered up this most despicable crime.

    1. By the way;

      Why would anyone use that poison?

      Is the key question that can be answered by anyone not just HMG.

      The Chemical had its origins in Russia

      Whoever used it would have the finger of suspicion pointed at Russia.

      Applied to a door handle means an indiscriminate attack, it couldn’t be determined who would touch it, only one person needed to close / lock the door.

      And its extreme rarity, complete inefficiency as a killer and undirected methodology of the attack means only one thing.

      The victim(s) didn’t matter, what mattered was that Russia was implicated.

  114. Off Topic; Chrystal Palace v Brighton Football Match.
    Police release images of 14 suspects regarding violence.
    Good clear images.
    Nothing from Maltings bench area Salisbury?

    1. Come to think of it, we don’t have a single picture of Sergei or Yulia at all on 4 March. We might have a picture of Sergei’s arm (in his car)… but apart from that… nothing. Not even one! For the entire day.

      1. Yes a total lockdown regarding Sunday 4th March 2018 Maltings.
        Not very good is it.
        I do keep wondering why but it is very obvious in my book.

        1. Clearly the whole thing is a hoax but why didn’t TPTB do a better job? How hard would it have been to put out a few pictures instead of leaving us with nothing and making the hoax obvious?

          1. Paul, apparently it’s not that obvious to many.

            The only member of the general public that claims to have seen a CCTV recording of the Maltings on 4 Mar 2018 is Ms. Cooper. But is she credible? My guess is yes because she disclosed the time stamp as 13:45 while the Met was attempting to set the duck feed at shortly before the bench incident at approximately 16:00. However, was Ms. Cooper shown an unaltered recording? (Altering the time stamp wouldn’t have been an option as even after a couple of weeks the parents would have recalled that their children were home long before 16:00.)

            If what Ms. Cooper was show was authentic and she reported what she was shown, that man in the CCTV appears not to have been seen by anyone else that claims to have seen the man at the Mill pub, Zizzi, and the bench. While the eyewitness reports are few, Skripal’s leather bomber jacket is too distinctive for not one person to have noted and mentioned it. Instead, we heard of a dark colored jacket and well-dressed.

            Why did the Met appeal to the public for information/sightings of Skripal between 13:00 and 13:40? (iirc the 9:00 to 12:00 sighting appeal was never official.) Coincidental that it’s the only time window when the Skripals and P&B could have physically connected. How could they have honed in on these two within a few days?

            1. I suppose we shouldn’t dismiss ordinary possibilities such as Skripal returned to his car and changed jackets after the duck feed. Also, Ms. Cooper is unlikely to have been able to ascertain if the Skripals were on their way to the Maltings or leaving the area. If her observation and recollection of the time stamp as 13:15 is correct, it opens a plethora of additional possibilities.

              One other thing I’ve meant to draw attention to is when P&B booked their return flight – early Saturday morning, around 7:00 iirc. Could have been their first opportunity to get a cheap seat, but it seems odd for a weekend getaway. More plausible to me is that they booked their return after fulfilling their primary job task on Friday evening which may also have included a Salisbury rendezvous at 13:00 on Sunday followed by a downtown walkabout. If so, the Kremlin/Putin knows exactly what role the two were hired to perform.

              1. The fact that P&B were interviewed says the Kremlin not only knew exactly what P&B were doing but also that they were utterly confident that no CCTV existed of them doing anything nefarious. For that matter, there would be no witnesses who would be able to contradict what they said.

                We have no reason to believe the fellow guest who complained of their alleged antics in the hotel. Hiring prostitutes for Saturday evening is not what I would expect them to have done (if they really were agents) and how the fellow guest could be sure it was even the same people is a mystery to me, six months after the event.

                How can we be sure they ever were in that hotel or even that they they stayed in London?

                As far as ALL the police ‘appeals’ for witnesses are concerned, I believe that they can all be discounted as the police never produced any images to help people recall the events. I think all such appeals was just PR in support of the hoax.

                I do not know how much of the witness evidence about what Sergei and Yulia were wearing is reliable either… I am quite sure that some of the witnesses are not real.

                The ONLY piece of evidence that still persuades me that Sergei and Yulia were in Salisbury at all on 4 March, is the evidence of Greg Townsend’s friend who said that Greg had personally served Sergei. If that evidence is fake then I think it is very probable that Sergei and Yulia were not there at all.

                1. I left Mrs Cooper for last. I have always been surprised that she agreed to speak with Rob at all. Surely the police had told her not to speak to anyone. I tried to contact her husband Luke but got no response. I have also tried to contact several of the other named witnesses but have not found a single one willing to say anything meaningful. So why was Mrs Cooper different? I don’t understand that.

                  As to how much CCTV she saw, I don’t know but I can’t imagine that it was more than 10 -20 seconds – enough to show Aiden but not much more. I also do not know how interested she was in this case and how much attention she might have paid to the various pictures of Sergei and Yulia that had appeared within the first 2-3 weeks. If the police told her the couple in the CCTV were Sergei and Yulia, why would she doubt it? As she was quite likely in a state of shock when the police turned up on her doorstep, she managed to take in an awful lot in that 10-20 seconds: identifying Aiden, noticing what Sergei and Yulia were wearing and noticing the time stamp.

                  Overall, I do not doubt Mrs Cooper’s evidence but it was very convenient for the police to have a member of the public saying that she had seen CCTV of Sergei and Yulia in Salisbury on that afternoon.

                  1. Paul,

                    Just to make clear, according to Mrs Cooper, the CCTV was seen by her partner as well (and I presume Aiden, although she didn’t explicitly state this). Even if she was not *that* interested in the case, she cannot have been unaware of the case and of what Mr Skripal looked like by that time (approximately two weeks after), as it was in every paper, all over the TV and the people of Salisbury were talking about little else.

                    I specifically asked her whether the two people she had seen were the two people in Market Walk. She told me it was “definitely not” them, and that “CID had a really clear picture of Aiden with Mr Skripal and his daughter was stood behind.”

                    As for the idea that “it was very convenient for the police to have a member of the public saying that she had seen CCTV of Sergei and Yulia in Salisbury on that afternoon” – I’m not sure what you mean by this. If it was convenient for them, they could have released a statement from Mrs Cooper to the press. As it was, it came out by other means, and so it seems to me that this is not exactly knowledge that was meant to come out in public.

                    Rob

                    1. Rob, As I said, overall I do not doubt what Mrs Cooper told you at all… it is just that a couple of things niggle. Why she agreed to speak with you is the most obvious but why none of the three boys noticed that the person they had fed ducks with, was suddenly all over the press and TV but they said nothing, is another.

                      Just by way of comparison, I wonder how many Salisbury residents would be able to identify the face of their MP in a random photograph. More or less than half?

                      When speaking of ‘convenience’ all I meant was that it suited the Met’s agenda to have the original story broadcast (I wasn’t referring to your follow up!). In fact, do we know WHY the duck feeding incident became known at all? There was no obvious need to do so, except that it was used, once again, to vilify Russia – it has somewhat backfired on them since.

                      The first report was here:
                      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-children-taken-hospital-after-12245559
                      but the story MUST have been approved for release before The Mirror published it. It was the same article that noted the duck feeding was “described by British officials to US authorities” – which was and remains a non-sequitur… why were we told about the duck feeding and why were we told it had been shared with US authorities? Who wanted us to know?

                    2. Rob, (in response to your comment further down thread) As usual I can’t fault your logic. However, your data set in this instance might be too small. Consider the following timeline, recognizing that we know when events are reported but when they actually occurred is less defined.

                      March 2018

                      12 – May announces that it’s Novichok from Russia
                      12 – Tillerson issues a statement in support of May

                      13 – (at 8:44) Trump fires Tillerson and advances Pompeo to State and Haspel to CIA Director

                      14 – May expels RU diplomats
                      14 – UN – urgent Security Council meeting
                      14 – Nikki Haley statement accepting UK charges
                      14 – NATO “deeply concerned”

                      15 – France, Germany, and US issue a joint statement in support of UK

                      18 – Aiden Cooper’s parents contacted (based on father Luke statement, ““We didn’t think anything of it until two weeks later when then the police knocked on our door.”)

                      20 – 22 or 23 – OPCW arrives to take environmental samples (results will be available in two to three weeks).

                      20 – 22 – court hearing on a protective order for the Skipals
                      22 – Justice Williams approved the order and blood samples for testing by OPCW can proceed
                      22 – DS Bailey released from SDH (likely completely well at least a week earlier – Mar 15?)

                      23 – likely date of Haspel meeting with Trump
                      23 – bench removed from Maltings

                      24 – (Saturday at 23:03) Mirror article on the unnamed three children that included: 1) “The incident involving the boys, who are believed to have been given the all-clear, was confirmed by Public Health England and described by British officials to US authorities.” 2) “The shocking revelation is one of a series we can make today, including how investigators are now focusing on the double agent’s front door handle as the “ground zero” where spooks planted the deadly poison.” (An intentional slip up in that sentence? Are alleged Russian assassins generally referred to as “spooks?”) Was this the first media report that it was the door handles wat done it?

                      26 – Trump expels RU diplomats
                      26 – Sixteen EU countries expel RU diplomats

                      27 – NATO expels RU diplomats

                      28 – The Sun 27 Mar interview and photos of Aiden Cooper and his parents
                      28 – or by 28 – Novichok on Skripal’s door handle is HMG’s official claim for the public

                      29 – Yulia out of critical care (announcement likely delayed for four to seven days)

                      Reviewing this suggests to me the same problem they had on 5 Mar, a shortage of deadly nerve agent patients. That one was resolved by declaring the 6 Mar hospital admission of DS Bailey was also Novichok (then they floundered around first placing him at the bench, then not at the bench but Skripal’s house, then back at the bench, then both, then seemed to settle on just the house but when has continued to vary and change over time). (IMHO, Bailey was either zapped with a chemical by SO15/MI5/6 or willingly volunteered for the role of crisis actor. Either way, he’s now a compromised cop and not to be trusted.)

                      While offering verbal support for May other countries didn’t immediately fall in line with her expulsion order on the 14th. The OPCW had yet to arrive and it’s results were weeks away. However, in preparation for the arrival of OPCW inspectors, HMG plotters had to settle on a “hot spot” to coat with a nerve agent. In the meantime, more CW victims were needed, and they knew by then that Bailey couldn’t be held for more than a few more days. Hence the contact with the parents of the three boys, scaring all of them, and sending them to SDH for testing. More of a show than cover at that point. A show being passed to Haspel for her to use in her presentation to the big kahuna. Not a stretch to posit that HMG gave Haspel pictures of the three sweet boys and pictures of them being tested at SDH. HMG or Haspel gilding the lily by Implying that some ducks might be dead isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.

                      UK officials passing on the junk to Haspel knew exactly how she would use it and to what purpose. And also that Haspel would never breathe a word to an outsider of what they’d cooked up. And likely not their first such “deep state” collaboration, but there was a wild card in this one. Unlike prior US Presidents, Trump has an itchy twitter thumb along with his big mouth. So, while technically Haspel only closed the deal on Monday, the 26th, the UK officials weren’t about to be the fall guys if Trump spouted off about sick children and dead ducks. Best to get ahead of the story by planting the no kids or ducks were harmed with the Mirror to run on Sunday and as the OPCW inspectors had left town, it was also a good time to begin telling the public about the Novichok dripping door handle (repeat it until a majority suspends all logic and accepts it as fact).

                      Did the UK officials involved in getting both stories out there notice the obvious problem? Or expect journalists and the public to overlook it? They did attempt to tidy up the problem with The Sun report on the 28th. “They were handed bread and are among the last people to have had contact with the retired ­Russian military intellig­ence colonel, now fighting for his life. [emp added] Presumably, the Skripals dripping with Novichok as they went about the Maltings must have washed it off their hands by the time of the duck feed (a preview of Rowley months later); therefore, the boys weren’t poisoned. Cute because it could also serve as an explanation wrt no sick first responders. Until someone had the audacity to uncover their little ruse.

                  2. Paul – in response to your 9:39 comment wrt the release of the duck feed story – why contact the parents of the children at all? By the time of the major incident declaration -11:00 on 4 Mar 2018 – all those that had come in contact with the then “unidentified toxin” would already have been sickened. All of Salisbury was on notice to get to SDH if they experienced any symptoms. A reasonable conclusion is that none of the three boys became sick on 4 Mar and the subsequent few days. Yet, two weeks later the authorities directed the parents to take their children in for testing. Medically ridiculous; so, a reasonable conclusion is that it was for show.

                    (The weak part of the polonium in a teapot and Novichok on the door handle claims is the absence of other victims. DS Bailey sort of filled in that gap, but his hospital admission date (I know I keep harping on this and nobody else seems to find it relevant) – sometime Tuesday 6 Mar – doesn’t fit with the nerve agent allegations.)

                    1. Hi Marie,

                      Re your comment that it was “Medically ridiculous; so, a reasonable conclusion is that it was for show.” I agree with the first part of that. It was absolutely medically absurd. However, I wouldn’t say that it was for show, as such, but rather for cover.

                      If we recall that the ducks’n’boys story first appeared in the same piece as the door handle theory, it starts to make sense. In order for the door handle theory to be mooted, they had to ensure that anyone who may have come into direct contact with Mr Skripal after about 13:30 would be checked out. Otherwise there was always the risk that someone might pop up to say “Hang on a minute. I shook hands with Mr Skripal or fed ducks with him or whatever, and they never even contacted me.” In order to prevent that possibility, they visited the parents of the boys, and instead of keeping it hush hush, some bright spark presumably had the idea that this could be used to make the whole incident seem far more scary than it actually was. Hence the story in The Sun about “Putin’s youngest victim.” However, all it really did was to highlight even more the absurdity of the claims they were making. If the duck boys were not contaminated, how could Mr Skripal have been?

                      Rob

                    2. Marie – Agree with all of that.

                      Re Bailey I think we all agree that the Tuesday morning admission does not fit with anything. We were initially told (or led to believe) that he was (along with others) decontaminated on Sunday – that is probably a lie. We think he was possibly the cause of the ‘external event’ at SDH on Monday morning but was (maybe) released – there was an announcement saying 2 had been admitted but only one remained, so maybe he wasn’t released… but then it was Urban in the Panorama programme who said he had been admitted on Tuesday morning.

                      The story has been stuck there ever since… but why? It is not credible that he was well enough to be discharged and to go home if he had been struck down by a nerve agent. So when and how was he poisoned… we have no idea. Did he really go to SDH on Tuesday morning or was he already there?

                      Also his symptoms were clearly very different from what was described for the others… and he was not ‘in a coma’ and didn’t need a tracheostomy…

                      All very odd.

                    1. You selectively believe anonymous quotes in the media. You might as well believe Mark Urban.

                    2. Of course, that is not how your brain works. You settle on a narrative and then you chose what might fit into the narrative.

                      Psst. The world is a mad place. Narratives are not real.

                    3. Rudeness, which you excel at, is no substitute for an argument, which is your default position.

                      I said: “We have no reason to believe the fellow guest” and explained why.

                      You say: “You selectively believe anonymous quotes” – please give me a single example of where I have selectively believed an anonymous quote and when you have done that, please give me one reason why I should believe the guest who claimed prostitutes were in the room of assassins the night before their mission.

                3. I don’t believe anything about any of this incident. All I can do is look at each alleged fact and consider reasons – logic and/or other claims and facts – to accept, provisionally accept, provisionally reject, or reject each claim.

                  For example, the Gatwick and Heathrow CCTV recordings place P&B in those locations – 2 Mar and 4 Mar. We do depend on airlines to keep and report accurately as to passengers on any flight. (Very necessary for a variety of reasons.) And Aeroflot isn’t subject to pressure from HMG on that matter. Finally, P&B didn’t dispute their travel to the UK on those days. Thus, the weight of evidence leads me to accept that P&B were in the UK on those days.

                  wrt to the City Stay Hotel:
                  1) Not plausible for another guest to recall something from six months earlier and claim that he’d reported it at the time. The hotel owner/management wasn’t informed by the Met as to the room P&B stayed in and as the Met had confiscated his records, he couldn’t check that. Apparently has no recollection of the complaint and in September, the other guest didn’t offer him a reminder. Thus, provisionally reject.
                  2) P&B didn’t dispute the Met’s claim as to where they’d stayed in London. Thus, provisionally accept.

                  While P&B were far from camera ready in their interview, they were likely prepared as to what they could dispute and acknowledge. Therefore, not disputing or not acknowledging any component is weaker evidence. What they strenuously objected to is that they went through separate entry channels at Gatwick at almost the exact same time. This would be an insignificant and immaterial point to the Met’s claims. Unless, P&B (and thus RU authorities) are confident that the videos were doctored, but they have no ability to prove that.

                  1. The arrival video was doctored! There was a brilliant video proving that P&B had gone through the same channel (just like they said). The video showed that the dust pattern on the CCTV camera lens was identical for both of them and that it was impossible that they had gone through separate channels.
                    This was the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2r5lY1sF08

                    And it’s gone!

                    It is a few months since I have seen it so I don’t know when it vanished but it was produced in the US by a company called (I think) ‘Blackrock’ (or something like that). I will try to find it elsewhere and will post if I find it – but until then please assume that the arrival CCTV timestamp was 100% faked by the Met. Just like P&B said, they went through the same channel!

                    Do others remember seeing the video?

                    1. I found a copy and posted it here but the post did not appear!

                      This is the link (remove all the spaces, I have put them in to circumvent whatever is blocking the post:

                      https://www. b i t c h u t e .com/video/D2r5lY1sF08/

                      Maybe we should all download a copy before it is completely removed from the internet.

                    2. Ah! Of course! Rob’s family friendly ‘bad word’ filter does not like the name for female dogs! So it is a good job Sergei kept cats!

                    3. Paul, I saw that video back when it was first posted, but didn’t find it as convincing you did. However, the Met videos didn’t pass my “blink” test (borrowing from Malcolm Gladwell’s book). The were “off.”

                      What convinced me was P&B’s rejection of the authenticity of the recording. That still begs a couple of questions as nothing hangs for HMG or P&B in this video. There is no obvious reason why HMG would doctor this one or why P&B would choose that to attack that one. Could be that UK and RU have been engaging in a spy game/sparing over this, both sides knowing what the other side knows, and the public will never be privy to it.

            2. The people we’ve spoken to described them as being smartly dressed and Sergei was not wearing a leather jacket. If Rus and Alex had crossed the road (images on the bridge in front of the Mill pub) and walked along the river- Maltings shopping area to meet the Skripals, they would have been filmed on the CCTV camera placed on the wall to the right of the library windows, over the entrance to the arcade.

              1. There obviously must be lots of CCTV of both the Skripals that is not shown.

                The blue jeans and brown leather jacket are from CCTV days before
                https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/07/cctv-shows-sergei-skripal-shopping-days-before-he-collapsed

                I guess the snap fitness video is due to journalists wanting something, anything, paying for anything. Above video presumably, too, before the government had managed to get hold of the videos. The Dauwalder CCTV came after Borishov and Petrov were shown by the Met.

                But there must be CCTV of the Skripals walking into Zizzi, walking into the Mill. The waiters there KNEW them, they were locals.
                And we know there is CCTV of them feeding ducks.

                I would not trust witnesses on clothing. The brain works in a way that stores images without a time frame. So when you see people dressed in a certain way in a photograph it may overlay your memory.

                1. Ignore the hair colour and what they were wearing and you have a presice description of the pair on the bench; a male and a younger female

                2. But yes, the Snap Fitness couple may have been used to confuse.

                  When Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey, they had sent an actor “dressed like him” or even using his clothes to make it appear on CCTV that Khashoggi had left the embassy. This did not work as Khashoggi’s fiance had waited in front of the embassy.

                  But the Snap Fitness couple was not dressed like Skripals as described … no hood to have over her face as witnesses described Yulia on the bench, no leather jacket. And the woman does not wear blue jeans
                  https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16067205.cctv-taken-minutes-before-police-were-called-to-reports-of-suspected-poisoning-of-russian-spy-in-the-maltings/

                  So, I guess, the images are due to the media thirsting for clicks.

                  1. What is clear is that British authorities want to close this case with “Petrov” and “Borishov” as the culprits with the embarassing problem of Dawn Sturgess’s death the two cannot be blamed for.

                    There is no date for a public inquiry, and their won’t be if there is no political pressure.

      2. Of the cctv images of P&B released by the police, the only one that matters is the one showing them walking past the filling station, heading out of town and supposedly towards the Skripal home. All the other images are fluff. The question is, is the filling station image genuine or not?

        1. I believe it genuine but it takes a leap of faith to think they were heading towards #47 – apart from anything else, it looks like they are on the wrong side of the road.

          1. Thanks Paul. Your other point is also well made: the fact that P&B were allowed to give that TV interview suggests that the Russian “powers-that-be” knew, or were confident, that the British PTB didn’t have any really incriminating cctv material, e.g. footage of them actually doing the deed at the Skripal home.

            1. Bearing in mind that Salisbury is well endowed with CCTV (both public and private) had P&B been up to anything, you really would think HMG would have had the proof and P&B’s interview would have been a very risky tactic for the Kremlin. I think we are now entitled to infer that no such CCTV exists. Interestingly, HMG has never claimed that it does exist.

        2. I suspect that it’s fake, but not strongly enough reject its authenticity. For two reasons, casually sauntering (as seen in the video) from the train station to that location isn’t possible within the given time frame. (A jog from the train station to just before a gas station seems too odd.) Second, as Rob has pointed out, there is another CCTV at the Shell station just beyond the first one that would also have captured the duo. Presenting both would add weight to the authenticity of the first one, but the Met hasn’t bothered to release it.

    1. Does make it clearer to those British voters in doubt as to who is now in charge of their “democracy.” The HMG Cons used to wield enough power to get it done on their own, but just in case they’re approaching Guaido territory, the Yanks will rescue them.

    2. Liane, I find the reporting on this story a bit strange. The information is leaked by an anonymous source, and it’s delivered in soundbites. The article you linked I read earlier from a nakedcapitalism link, but even second time round it’s poorly written (or at least proofread). Also, it’s based on a Washington Post article that doesn’t seem to deliver much more information.

      RT has this report, but again it’s based on soundbites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwl87RaYks8

      I wonder if there’s a full recording of what he said. The Washington Post has this podcast, but I just don’t have the time right now to find out if it contains the leaked information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/exclusive-pompeo-delivers-unfiltered-view-of-trumps-middle-east-peace-plan-in-off-the-record-meeting/2019/06/02/94527d80-3a2c-4f04-b8f9-dd3fd78a5a8c_story.html?utm_term=.5f6d011a83f1

  116. Wiltshire Constabulary in talks with BBC over upcoming Novihoax Drama.
    How can this be during an ongoing investigation. Are Wiltshire Constabulary
    telling BBC untruths relevant a hoax?
    Not looking good for the truth.
    Did Dawn witness something and was targeted or was she just from
    wrong side of tracks in life.
    Are Wiltshire Constabulary investigating Dawn’s Murder rather than
    telling BBC lies?
    Support Dawn And Charlie.

    1. This cannot be.
      I have already made a preemptive complaint to the BBC about this programme.

      It is beyond the pale that an ongoing murder investigation with perpetrators already named and labeled as assassins before the coroner has had his twice postponed hearing not only has happened, but there will now be a two part documentary about it too.

      (Apologies to my regular readers about the length of the above sentence. You get a better rant that way.)

  117. Here is a response to a complaint made to the Information Commissioner Office (ICO) regarding a Free of Information Request (FoIR) made on 16th December 2018

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/539752/response/1379927/attach/html/3/1065%20Novichok%20advice.pdf.html

    As you will see the ICO didn’t respond but the authority complained about did; Public Health England (PHE)

    The Complaint came about because a Requester via a FoIR asked why PHE’s advice on the time for the Wiltshire Novichok to take effect was so at odds with the OPCW’s advice regarding Nerve Agents in general.

    Advice for symptoms to take effect when contact made through the Skin.

    OPCW: 20 – 30 Minutes

    PHE: 3 hours (minimum) with very large dosage – 12 hours (maximum) with significant dosage.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_advice_on_novichok_wiltsh

    PHE responded that was not their advice despite their Director having given that advice to worried members of the public at a public meeting in Amesbury after the Amesbury poisonings

    They then offered an alternative to the original advice which is detailed below

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/539752/response/1289350/attach/html/2/968%20FOI%20Public%20advice%20on%20Novichok.pdf.html

    The Requester, unhappy with the response, then asked for an Internal review and got this response

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/539752/response/1336403/attach/html/2/1065%20IR%20Novichok.pdf.html

    The Requester was dissatisfied with the Internal Review and made a complaint to the ICO

    As you see above the ICO did not respond but PHE did saying; the request should not have been handled as an FoIR, and there should not have been an Internal Review, the information requested isn’t their’s and its secret anyway. Dated 10th June 2019. They say if the Requester is not happy they can ask for another Internal Inquiry

    So no nearer to finding (from PHE Porton Down) out why Nerve Agents in general cause symptoms when transmitted through the Skin in 20 – 30 minutes but the New Novichok identified in Wiltshire only causes symptoms after 3 – 12 hours.

    The answer however appears to be in DSTL’s (also located at Porton Down) Secret Locker.

    Some however have possibly worked out that secret.

    If DSTL had an existing sample of the specific chemical said to have been found in both Salisbury and Amesbury. They knew it was different from other Novichoks in formula, properties and the pathology it induces in mammals, the only way for that to be known is by mammalian testing, and the only way for Porton Down to reach the conclusions they have is to have access to the Animal Testing Results.

    What appears may have happened is that Porton Down continued the Research of the Foliant Program to see where Russia got to or may have got to. In doing so they would have produced many fluorodated oganophoshate compounds related to the A series developed by Russia. Then they would be tested on animals and perhaps one particular long chain version presented with an unusual property.

    Its ability to time delay the symptom syndromes.

    Of course that chemical was not used in Wiltshire, an Opioid Compound was, which produced the same miosis reaction as a nerve agent would. The Skripals dropping simultaneously after two and a half hours rules out any form of Nerve Agent being used as do the reaction times of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley.

    But that would mean that the samples taken by the OPCW must have been deliberately contaminated with the new “pure” unique time delay chemical which only Russia could have known about despite it sitting on a shelf in Porton Down and them having the Animal Testing Results from it.

    The mess is not getting any better.

    1. If Novichok took so long to work, it would never get out of the lab.

      “Comrade, we have deployed the Novichok. For now, we will postpone the fighting until the 4 hours has passed. Ask the hated enemy if there is anything they need while we are waiting, Maybe a pizza, or shall we sit in? Take care, their 65 year old diabetic warriors may take a longer time to succumb.”

    2. Quote : “In order to be able to formulate its public health advice, PHE was granted access to information held by other government agencies in an appropriate secure environment. For security reasons, we were not able to take the information away from that secure environment.”

      In other words : PHE is not allowed to disclose why the substance tested in Porton Down is different from the Novichok known to the OPCW.

      OPCW´s 20 – 30 Minutes were claimed for the known Novichoks.
      PHE´s 3 hours (minimum) – 12 hours (maximum) were claimed for the substance found by Porton Down.

      So it remains Porton Down’s well-guarded secret why they called this substance “Novichok”, even though it has nothing to do with the Novichoks we know so far.

        1. A tiny change to a chemical formula can and does have massive results

          The Oxygen Atom O, on its own, is an indispensable element but it can also be a bloody nuisance eg when it encounters Iron it turns it into rust.

          When Oxygen goes around in pairs O2 it provides life for all living matter on the planet.

          But if three of them get together O3 (Ozone) they are deadly poisonous if breathed by a human.

          Hydrogen, on its own, in the presence of oxygen is an extremely violent explosive but if you bond two of them with oxygen you get water.

          The point being; very small changes in a molecule’s make-up produces hugely different characteristics to its properties.

          A Novichok is Nerve Agent designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly and efficiently.

          What is said to have been identified in Salisbury was not designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly and certainly not efficiently, it was not a Novichok. It was however very similar chemically to a Novichok but it wasn’t one.

      2. As I understand the stuff never got out of laboratory stage into mass production. I doubt its effects were ever really tested.
        It is quite possible the stuff is not that dangerous to begin with.

        2. There is also this
          https://natsouth.livejournal.com/5518.html
          “At that time, Yelstin appointed General Anatoly Kuntsevich, as his chemical weapons advisor, as part of the effort to eliminate CW stocks, until he was fired in 1995. By which time, General Kuntsevich was under the the West’s intelligence services’ spotlight for his apparent connections to both the Syrian & Iraqi CW programmes back them. So much so, that ‘novichoks’ also appeared in an US document on Iraqi WMD back in 2001
          …”

          And of course this
          https://www.timesofisrael.com/did-the-mossad-kill-a-russian-general-for-peddling-deadly-nerve-agent-to-syria/

      3. PHE´s 3 hours (minimum) – 12 hours (maximum) were claimed for the substance found by Porton Down.

        And that describes which of the alleged five victims? Doorknob to publicly reported observations as “out of it” on the bench was only two and a half hours. (Just over two hours if the Met comment that appeared and then quickly disappeared placed the two people on the bench at 3:45 PM.) If — and it’s one fact that I accept as true — DS Bailey was admitted to SDH on Tuesday, where had he been in the prior twelve hours? Rowley never described his and then Dawn’s contact with the weird perfume bottle as having occurred three hours or more before Dawn became ill. That would have been no later than 7:15 and up to nine hours earlier. As they were partying the evening before, 7:15 seems a bit early to be up and about. The maximum (12 hours) sets Rowley’s contact no earlier than 3:30. Leaving a window from 3:30 to 7:15 for the alleged contact.

          1. Dawn was murdered and drip by drip the British authorities are providing the evidence that they were involved

          2. Not overthink to point out that PHE’s claim as to the chemical allegedly used in Salisbury doesn’t fit with the time frame presented by the Met. Easy conclusion – either, or both, PHE and the Met don’t know what they’re talking about or are lying.

            Still looks to me as if Salisbury and Amesbury were opioid ODs. Possibly contaminated or carfentanil. The latter not having been seen in Wiltshire as of March 2018.

  118. I find it totally shameful and embarrassing as a UK citizen if this Hoax
    is to be written off as a spy game.
    I would like a total cost figure regarding everything including the £42 Million
    granted Porton Down at start of Hoax.
    I agree with all of you that Dawn was murdered and Charles will never be
    same again.
    Why aren’t Dawns Family getting a slice of the cash cake along with
    Charles and Family?
    It’s all wrong when they both the real Hero’s.
    Totally Ashamed.

    1. “A brilliant blogger based in Salisbury named Bob Myer … ”

      Alexander Mercouris is a little bit free and easy with his facts, as shown by the way that he plugs Rob and the Blogmire (but it was a good day for the NYT to bury bad news).

      The Can is working hard at the moment: it has been kicked down the road repeatedly during Brexitfarce and now it has been handed over to Julian E Barnes so that he can carry it for his Duckgate reporting.

        1. Did anyone find out how the police actually identified the boys? How did they find out what their names were in order to identify their addresses and visit their parents 2 weeks later? All the police had was CCTV of 3 boys.

          1. As far as I know, it was never disclosed but if the police had pictures, it would not take long to visit the likely schools in the area and ask if anyone knew who the boys were.

            1. @ Paul,

              How about checking the CCTV footage and follow them all the way home?

              They had to do something with all that material…

            2. Probably why it took them so long, afterall, all they had to do was put something out on regional TV/Radio if they were in immediate “danger”.

              I’ve got a question about Rus and Alex. If you think the whole thing at the bench was a hoax, how do they fit into things? Surely their “guilt” relied on the door handle hoax, but since the “Novichok” sample sent to the OPCW was so pristine (almost sterile), thereby indicating it was fresh from some local laboratory (which I can’t name), what exactly are they supposed to be guilty of? Dawn’s never had an inquest and now the “evidence” has been cremated (presumably in case the family exercised their legal right to an independent autopsy).

              1. It is a fair question and the answer is I don’t know. It is possible they were indeed just tourists (that is how they behaved) but it is possible they were not tourists. If they were not tourists, they could have been couriers but then making 2 trips to Salisbury makes little sense – why did they not stay overnight on Saturday? For that matter why did they have a hotel in London at all? They booked their outward tickets just before they left home, so if it was Salisbury they wanted to see… why not stay in Salisbury? Cheaper and less traveling to do.

                Maybe they did stay in Salisbury. The images of them at the station are not track side, so maybe they were there to meet somebody… who knows. We only think that they were in London, on Saturday night, because that is what The Met says – but The Met has lied about everything else, so why not this too?

                Once you discard the notion of them as assassins, their role could be anything… or maybe no role at all connected with the Skripals.

                Regarding the OPCW samples. I would be very happy to bet that they were doctored by HMG before they were given to OPCW. In fact the OPCW comes out of this very badly: they do not look to be independent at all and their report seems to be something they had to be ‘persuaded’ to put their names to – hence the ‘clues’ in the text which are saying: “you do realise, this is not possible… but we can’t say more”.

  120. From the start it was never going to stand up to scrutiny that is why we have to let bygones be bygones with Russia and why the expelled Russian diplomats have returned to the UK.

    It was a Hoax, a very bad, ill thought out and executed Hoax but it was nevertheless a Hoax.

    Dawn’s death on the other hand was murder and justice must be done for her, her family and loved one’s. We cannot let Dawn’ death and the Hoax be swept under the carpet.

    ~~~

    By 8:00am on Tuesday 6th March 2018 DSTL Porton Down had confirmed the specific substance that had poisoned the Skripals (1)

    On the 14th March Mrs May told Parliament: (2)

    “On Monday, I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok—a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations—including against former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets—the UK Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. There are only two plausible explanations: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country; or, conceivably, the Russian Government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

    Then an application was made to the High Court to extract further biological samples from the Skripals, the hearing was held 20, 21 and 22 March, the order to take samples was made on the 22nd March. (3)

    This is how the Judge summed up the identity of the toxin from the evidence he had been given by Porton Down;

    “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.”

    “A Nerve Agent Or Related Compound”

    “A Novichok Class Nerve Agent Or Closely Related Agent”

    This is Most Important

    Porton Down were not Sure what the substance was.

    How then could the government be Sure it came from Russia?

    Porton Down had an existing sample of the precise same chemical according to Boris Johnson. (4)

    Iran had sythethised several Novichoks and published there formulas with manufacturing methods and registered them with the OPCW

    The Czech Republic produced Novichoks (5)

    And Professor Christopher Timperley, Lead Chemical Warfare Scientist at Porton Down and Chairman of the OPCW had published a book in 2014 detailing Similar Chemicals to Novichoks / Closely Related Agents / Related Compounds (6) http://fliphtml5.com/wmru/tsub/basic/51-100

    How then can the Chemical found in Salisbury, a Novichok or something like one, only have come from Russia?

    It can’t because it was a Hoax

    (1) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/539751/response/1327639/attach/html/3/20190312%20FOI2018%2015985%20Novichok%20Samples%20Rev.pdf.html

    (2) https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-03-14/debates/071C37BB-DF8F-4836-88CA-66AB74369BC1/SalisburyIncidentFurtherUpdate

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

    (4) https://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accused-of-making-misleading-russia-novichok-claim-in-dw-interview/a-43251856

    (5) https://www.spectroscopynow.com/details/ezine/1591ca249b2/Iranian-chemists-identify-Russian-chemical-warfare-agents.html?tzcheck=1&&tzcheck=1

    (6) http://fliphtml5.com/wmru/tsub/basic/51-100

    1. – The Skripals ‘found on a bench’ was a hoax.
      – The Skripals in SDH was a hoax (that has now ‘earned’ an honour!)
      – Bailey’s multiple versions of ‘evidence’ are a hoax (he didn’t get an honour!)
      – The cordons, the clean up, burying vehicles were all part of a hoax
      – Duck feeding boys at risk was a hoax
      – ‘Nerve agent’ was a hoax
      – ‘Russia did it’ was a hoax
      – Sergei and Yulia are being protected in the UK continues to be a hoax
      – Trump saw pictures of dead ducks and sick children was a hoax

      Nothing was true.

  121. I predicted the sale of the house, on here, a little while ago, its now confirmed;

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9253472/sergei-skripal-home-novichok-airbnb-fears/

    It is part of the airbrushing from history of the Wiltshire poisonings

    Putin and Trump have now both dismissed the caper as silly spy games and we are soon to have a new PM assisted by right hand man Sedwill who can manage the transition to acceptance that these things happen and we all now need to move on.

    But hold on! What about Dawn?

    Where is the justice for her death and the harm done to Charlie Rowley and Dawn’s family?
    Dawn’s young daughter and sons will now go through life never knowing the truth of what happened to their mum apart from the massive psychological storm created by what appears to be a pointless death, what closure do they have?

    The government has talked up Wiltshire poisonings to fever pitch, they told lies whipping up hostility towards Russia. And without a jot of evidence Theresa May initiated a clear out of Russian diplomats from dozens of Embassies worldwide. Now its time to move on.

    We were introduced to Novichok and told it was the most lethal Nerve Agent ever produced and yet its kill rate was only 20% and could be cleansed away using baby wipes therefore it posed very little threat to the public whilst the perfume bottle contained enough poison to kill 5000 or more people.

    Two months before Dawn was poisoned the police say they knew who had poisoned her and what their movements had been whilst they were in Britain. But they kept that information secret.

    If the citizens of Salisbury had been alerted to the fact that they were not at very low risk but instead in lethal danger then Dawn’s death might have been averted, awareness that a vial of Novichok could be lurking anywhere would have educated the people of Salisbury to not picking up things they found.

    Only after Dawn’s death were the people of Salisbury advised not to pick anything up that did not belong to them. The police issued the photos of the suspects 6 MONTHS after the original incident and asked “do you remember seeing this pair?”

    Closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.

    We now have to forget about that.

    The Pre Inquest Review (PIR) for Dawn has been rescheduled for October, its purpose is to set the agenda for the Inquest. But as the police have no evidence against the suspects to be confident of conviction, the police will turn up with their best guess as to what might have happened.

    The Coroner may want to know why Dawn became critically ill within 15 minutes of coming into contact with the substance in the bottle yet Charlie who spilt it on his hands and inhaled it prior to Dawns use of it, succumbed more than 8 hours later.

    Porton Down Experts might turn up and give their guesses as to why that was and the Skripals dropping simultaneously after one of them touched the door handle two and a half hours earlier. They couldn’t be sure when they submitted evidence to the High Court (after they had identified the substance) that it was indeed Novichok, it may have been a related chemical, whatever it was the substance must have come from Russia.

    Then of course there is DS Bailey whose actual movements and times of admission to hospital are being kept secret because that information is held for the purpose of criminal investigation / prosecution.

    The Coroner may also want to know why Novichok took so long to diagnose in Dawn’s case, after all the hospital had been sensitised to its use and indeed staff retrained to spot Nerve Agent poisoning. Why did it take 4 days to diagnose Dawn’s condition when it only took one day in the Skripals case?

    The public want these answers but Dawn’s family need them.

    Wiping the slate clean is not going to help them.

    We don’t hear much from Basu or Pritchard anymore, the Salisbury MP is keeping his head down, Boris Johnson resigned as soon as it started to go smelly, Mrs May has vacated her post. The Skripals are gone along with their homes, cars and all their possessions, Bailey is still bleating about losing all his. Yulia’s boyfriend made an early exit too along with Pablo Miller and Steele. Mark Urban hung around for a while to make a quick bob and spread some propaganda but he seems to have drifted away. Viktoria is still making small waves but we are being prepared for the final act:

    This is one of those sad cases where the facts will never be fully known or understood.

    That like the rest of the official story is a Lie, for Dawn’s and her family’s sake I hope the Truth is no forsaken. The government might have abandoned Truth but we should not.

    The Facts are known they just do not appear in the official version of events.

    1. A good summary.
      I´m thinking about what “spy games” could mean.
      It´s one agency (GRU) against the other (MI6-CIA).
      If the GRU really tried to kill the Skripals, what would have been the part of the other side in this “game” ?
      Makes no sense.
      But it makes a lot of sense if GRU tried to bring Sergei to Russia and MI6-CIA have foiled this plan by putting the Skripals out of action, taking them prisoners and at the same time accusing the GRU of attempted murder.
      In this case I would speak about “spy games”.

      Now comes the argument that Sergei could have fled to Russia via a third country.
      Counter question : Why do not we know about Sergei’s travels in 2013 and 2014?
      Maybe his MI6 handlers have forbidden him to leave the UK ?!
      Mark Urban may have sounded the alarm, so this step became necessary.

      1. Sergei was a regular visitor to the Russian Embassy in London under the noses of Mi5/6, he was in the thick of something, he wasn’t a docile retiree.

        If Sergei Sergei was to be repatriated back to Russia he would not do it whilst Yulia was in town or in that unlikely event he would have disapeared when he was off the radar for four hours in the morning.

        No Sergei knew about the bench Hoax and had his part to play, except he did some ad libbing that was not in the script, presumably because he thought it was in his best interests.

        There is also a distinct possibility that Sergei’s parting shot to the UK was to sabatage the Hoax from the off therefore exposing the ridiculous lengths the US and UK have gone to to discredit Russia.

        Just why Yulia was there I don’t know but I suspect she was snatched by the US as insurance

        1. I still think your last sentence is the key. You said Sergei knew of the planned bench hoax and I agree with that but I stumble over the idea that Sergei would have put Yulia in any danger. Whatever the plan was, it must have needed Yulia’s presence and Sergei was clearly OK with that.

          There must have been many ways for Sergei to slip away quietly if he had been on his own, so the fact he didn’t do that and stop Yulia’s visit, tells us that this was the only way. Both Sergei and Yulia seem to have been very willing participants.

            1. Also London was a long way to go twice a month just to get his Russian sausage and pickle according to the Russian food shop owner near Waterloo station

              1. There is no time frame on these trips – it sounds like it had been going on for some time. Given that and also Sergei still working in cyber security (so he would have know how to communicate safely), I believe that he was still (in some way) active. Which is why Morozov didn’t want to know him. I have no idea what he was doing but whatever it was, seems to have had the approval of the Russian Embassy.

                1. Urban had Sergei travelling to Switzerland for their annual Federal Intelligence Conference, 2017 focus was Cyber Security, Urban says he was a speaker

                  1. Anon,
                    I don’t doubt this is true, but:

                    With Sergei spending an appreciable time in prison, plus watched over in Salisbury, what skill set could he possibly bring to any cyber meeting?

                    1. Sergei was only 53 at the time of his arrest. We have no idea what his IT knowledge might have been at that time but he is clearly a smart guy and some retraining in IT while he was in prison, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Together with his former experience, it is quite conceivable that he could be a very useful consultant: able to mix real world needs with the knowledge of what was possible within IT.

                      To be able to speak about cyber security, Sergei would not need to be able to code, just to be up to date with what was possible in IT.

                    2. Duncan

                      I don’t know but

                      I am not sure Sergei spent any actual time in prison

                      The reports of him being a technophobe and spending his days playing outdated computer war games I am also unsure of

                      I think the neighbour who had their broadband router inspected by the police was a pointer to some suspicions that they may have had about Sergei’s capabilities

                      Sergei was a manager not a geek so if he managed sensitive security issues and found solutions for his clients then his background was probably well suited.

                      Understanding cyber security issues and interpreting unsaid vulnerabilities would have 90% of the job. His background had been an excellent apprenticeship for being able to hold his own with major international concerns and possibly being aware of their needs before they were.

                      My suspicion is that Sergei was planted in the UK for a joint US / Russia requirement, I believe that that requirement has all but evaporated

                    3. How much of your idea is right, we cannot yet know but it is the first theory that explains:
                      1) Why Sergei was included in the spy swap.
                      2) Why (if HMG found out what Sergei was doing) he might fear for his life and why HMG might want him out of the way.
                      3) Why Sergei would not have felt able to trust HMG’s 4 March plan.
                      4) Why Sergei was a frequent visitor to the Russian Embassy.
                      5) Why Russia and the US might have cooperated in getting Sergei out of the UK.

              2. We only know from Morozov (and main stream media :-)) about these trips. I find it amazing how trusting people are who distrust everything otherwise.

                1. Morozov’s interview was within a few days of the hoax. There was no reason for him to lie and what he said was certainly not what HMG wanted to hear! Afterwards stories were put about that Sergei was incompetent with IT but they were not as convincing as Morozov had been.

                  Even in the Skripal saga, some people have told the truth: Morozov, Freya, Olli Field and a few others – even the BBC managed the odd true report, such as the description of police entering and leaving Sergei’s house on 5 and 6 March, proving that the pets had already gone.

                  1. It was exactly what HMG wanted to hear. That it was not “their spy” they had failed to protect, but it was “their spy” maybe being a double spy and that it was his own fault.

                    “He also claimed Mr Skripal was keeping “dangerous” company, which is why he later chose to distance himself.
                    “Every month [he was] going to the embassy to meet military intelligence officers”, Mr Morozov told Channel 4 News.

                    “For me being political refugee it is either certain danger or, frankly speaking, I thought that this concept is not very good for me. It can be bring some questions from British officials.”

                    “

                    1. The link
                      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sergei-skripal-regular-contact-russian-embassy-former-kremlin-officer-spy-poison-nerve-agent-a8244926.html

                      Morozov, by the way, is not a “political refugee”. He lost a dispute about corruption in Sochi, where his construction business was involved.
                      https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2010/07/28/medvedev-orders-investigation-into-kremlin-corruption-a219
                      “Moskonversprom chairman Morozov told Russian and British media in early June that he had paid 180 million rubles ($5.7 million) in kickbacks to Leshchevsky, a deputy head of construction in the Office of Presidential Affairs, for winning a tender to reconstruct the Primorye complex at a sanatorium called Sochi and to draft a reconstruction plan for the Dagomys sanatorium. Both sanatoriums are affiliated with the Office of Presidential Affairs.

                      Leshchevsky has called the accusations unfounded and said Morozov was looking to avoid repercussions for violating the terms of his contract.”

                    2. And Morozov said “Skripal is nothing to Putin”, there was no way, according to Morozov that Russia could be behind it… just when HMG was trying to say the exact opposite!

                      Morozov’s interview is 100% credible.

                    3. More about Morozov’s case from the Moscow Times (which is not a Kremlin friendly paper)
                      “In March, construction workers at a Moskonversprom project in Sochi told The Moscow Times that they had not been paid in months and were forced to pawn their belongings for food. Morozov denied the allegations at the time, saying the strikers were part of a campaign to discredit his firm for the sake of local construction companies.

                      Moskonversprom had also been building housing for Sochi residents relocated because of the construction for the Olympics, before state corporation Olimpstroi said it broke off the contract with the firm in early June over Moskonversprom’s “failure to abide by the contract terms, such as labor conditions.”

                      Moskonversprom has worked with the Office of Presidential Affairs since 2003, Morozova said in one of her three letters to Medvedev.

                      Further complicating matters, two unidentified Sochi police officers on Monday beat up one of Moskonversprom’s directors, Andrei Shurpyak, and forced him to sign documents that said a developer, Sochiremstroi, had carried out construction on a residential complex for displaced Sochi residents, while the work in question had not been done, Morozov said in an e-mailed statement.”

                    4. All very interesting but it does not undermine Morozov’s interview, we know Morozov is not a friend of the Kremlin which makes the fact he laughs at the idea Putin was involved, even more credible.

      2. Yulia could have been there to send the pets to Russia after Sergei made a successful escape.
        She would pack his things together and send them to Russia.
        She would hire a broker to sell the house and give him all the necessary papers.
        Yulia wanted to stay two weeks. Enough time to fix all this.

      3. Spy games as in “Russiagate”?

        Why should Britain refuse to let him travel to Russia? He did not know anything about Britain. He would hardly go to Russia to boast about having participated in the Steele Dossier?

        And – why would he wait for Yulia to travel to Salisbury? Surely this would complicate things.

        Czech media seem to think that Skripal, Borishov and Petrov were in Prague in 2014, by the way.

        https://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/skripal-suspects-believed-to-have-followed-him-in-czechia-long-before-attempted-poisoning

        1. “Why should Britain refuse to let him travel to Russia?”

          Are you serious, anidea ?
          Why Steele refuses to travel to the US ?
          Why are Pablo Miller and Stefan Halper hiding ?
          Why is Mifsud hiding in Italy ?
          What about Azra Turk ?

          To get a clue what the British authorities are able to do, google the story of Sergey Kapchuk. Only one link :
          https://tvrain.ru/news/spiska_titova-463324/

          1. @Liane The Prime Minister of Italy has now fired two of the countries most powerful intelligence chiefs in a move directly attributed to their participation in using Joseph Mifsud to set up George Papadopoulos but do we know any more about ‘honeypot’ Azra Turk? I have not seen anything credible.

          2. 1. Italy fired SIX top ranking intelligence officials.
            Quote : Giuseppe Conte, the prime minister of Italy, fired the top management of three Italian intelligence agencies.
            https://pjmedia.com/trending/spygate-shake-up-prime-minister-of-italy-fires-top-officials-from-italian-intel-agencies/

            2. Even the NYT admits that Azra Turk was part of the Papadopoulos entrapement :
            Azra Turk was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
            Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper.
            It is unclear whether Mr. Horowitz will find fault with the F.B.I.’s decision to have Ms. Turk, whose real name is not publicly known, meet with Mr. Papadopoulos.
            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html

          3. I am just envisioning Skripal giving a press conference in Russia claiming that he wrote part of the Steele Dossier :-))

            He had no value to Russia and they had no reason to protect him either – his income – pension – was dependent on the UK and Russia had no reason to pick up the tab.

            Morozov’s story simply tries to hide the embarassement to MI6 – that they could not protect their spy in their own country.

    2. What astonishes me is that Dawn’s body was cremated when there is an open murder investigation. Is there any precedent for this?

    2. Robert Stuart is not the only one complaining to thee BBC about its coverage of Syria. Peter Hitchens has an update on his complaint(s):
      https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/06/complaining-to-ofcom-about-the-bbc-is-like-complaining-to-cherie-booth-qc-about-anthony-blair-wmd-bu.html

      Concerning the ‘poverty report’ – there is obviously plenty of money, Treasonous Mayhem wants to hand over £40billion to the EU for… well, nothing much really. The problem is that there is a massive disconnect between what people would like to see the money spent on and what politicians decide to spend it on. Just more evidence that the ‘system’ does not work at all anymore, at any level. When did you last see a bobby on the beat? Can you point to any benefits that have come your way from the UK’s foreign aid budget?

      1. A list of recipients can also be found here:
        https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2889128/whos-been-named-in-the-queens-birthday-honours/

        “Wiltshire Council director Alistair Cunningham, who chaired the South Wiltshire Recovery Group, has been given an OBE for services to the community of Wiltshire. His vice-chair Robin Townsend has been handed an MBE, as has Simon Rowe, who worked on the operational side of the recovery group.

        Cara Charles-Barks, the Chief Executive of Salisbury District Hospital, is also getting an MBE for services to the NHS, following the incidents.

        Professor Timothy Atkins from Pewsey gets an OBE for public service – he’s a Senior Technical Fellow at DSTL at Porton Down. There are MBEs for additional DSTL staff, Dr Mark Fulop, the Programme Leader Chemical Biological and Radiological Division and Mark Rogers, an area manager at the site.”
        .
        .
        The interesting point is: the names that are not on the list…

  124. Accept Julian Barnes’s corrections for a moment and see where it leads:

    Whatever Haspel told Trump, or showed him in the way of evidence, she thought, and presumably her British informants thought, that dead ducks and sick children were (going to be) a convincing part of the narrative, and she thought that before the Mirror article on 24th March. In other words, she (or her informants) knew it was the doorhandle wot dunnit.

    The authorities knew about the duckfeeding early on, but did nothing to do warn the parents. The only innocent explanation for that is that they had no reason to believe that the Skripals were contaminated at that time, i.e. by the doorhandle. Because no-one had told them.

    You’re an elderly gentleman living in a foreign city and you want to entertain your daughter on her brief visit. Naturally you take her to a restaurant and a pub (or vice versa.) Do you also take her, during a busy day – tiring for a person of your age – on a longish detour to feed the ducks for a few brief minutes? With bread ready in your pocket?

    But you’re also an (ex)-spy living in a city with CCTV cameras everywhere. Your every move tells a story. What story does the duckfeeding tell if not: “Look, I’ve got poison all over my hands and I’m killing children and wildfowl. Start panicking”?

    The Mirror article contains the absurd hypothesis that Yulia might unwittingly have brought the poison with her from Russia, and the equally absurd statement that this hypothesis is disproved by the fact that no trace was found in her suitcase (because if it was there, it would be bound to have leaked, innit?) “lending weight to speculation the attack was ordered by Moscow.” (Because if it didn’t come from Russia, it must be the work of the Russians, geddit?) The article continues:

    “Meanwhile, an expert on chemical weapons branded the revelation that no poison was found in Yulia’s luggage ‘extremely worrying’. Philip Ingram, a former military intelligence officer, said: ‘It means there could still be someone out there with a pot of this stuff. It could be anywhere – it might have been left at a station or chucked over a fence into a school.’”

    That’s two experts, one commenting on the speculation of the other, coming to the conclusion that Dawn must die.

    1. And another thing (or two). After the shocking revelation of the possible danger to British ducks and schoolchildren, the Mirror article adds, almost as an afterthought:

      “The shocking revelation is one of a series we can make today, including how investigators are now focusing on the double agent’s front door handle as the “ground zero” where spooks planted the deadly poison.”

      Hang on. Once the doorhandle theory was settled on, it was revealed that the secret services were in possession of a Dummy’s Guide to Russian Spying which recommended sticking poison on doorknobs, (though not, presumably, in Russia, where people wear gloves outside for a large part of the year.) But it took two weeks for the Plod to go: “Russian spy poisoned by Russian spies. Maybe there’s a clue in the Russian I-Spy Manual?”

      And another thing. The former military intelligence officer quoted in the Mirror article says of the Novichock used in the attempted murder of the Skripals that “a pot of the stuff” “..could be anywhere – it might have been left at a station or chucked over a fence into a school.”

      Why assume, in late March, that there’s a “pot of the stuff” somewhere? And while the speculation “..into a school” makes sense as propaganda, in the context of fear that children may have been contaminated, why “at a station”? Did this former intelligence officer know that Russian spies travel by rail?

      Much has been made of the insanity of Russia attempting to murder a traitor just before the election and the World Cup. Less (in fact none that I’ve seen) of the insanity of attempting to murder Skripal while his daughter was there, given the risk of killing an innocent Russian citizen and the undoubted increased surveillance of Skripal during his daughter’s visit.

      We know Russians were in Salisbury on the day, and what a right couple of charlies the Russian media made them out to be. Did they swab something on a doorknob, or did someone else, while they acted as decoys to be filmed in the vicinity? Whatever was swabbed, it wasn’t very good, was it? But the Brits thought it would be, and told the Americans. The British certainly thought the dead duck and sick kiddy story was a good one before they had confirmed that it was the doorknob wot dunnit, or they wouldn’t have fed it to Haspel.

      We know the Brits were prepared for an incident; with everything in place, from helicopters to the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army and her daughter. And that something went wrong. Otherwise why reverse the visits to the pub and the pizzeria? What hold does the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army have over the authorities that she can break cover and demand recognition for her daughter’s courage? Or Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who said after being discharged from hospital after a few days: “I recognise that ‘normal’ life for me will probably never be the same”. Why not? You were poisoned, and now you’re not, you silly little detective sergeant, and the government has paid a million for your house and chattels. How come you’re moaning in the press with no fear of recriminations?

      1. Geoff, It is really simple: the whole of the official narrative is BS. There was nothing on the door knob and no: Skripals, ducks or children (or tables in restaurants, police vehicles or ambulances) were injured or poisoned in the hoax. There clearly was some sort of MI5/6 ‘plan’ for 4 March but it all went terribly wrong and they have been digging themselves ever deeper ever since. None of it is remotely credible. Sergei is/was a wily old fox and has probably been having a good laugh at how easy it was to outfox them ever since. But you mentioned Dawn in your first post: she was a victim of HMG’s and the Met’s lies and incompetence and they must be made to pay for it.

  125. Candidates for Theresa’s Job not looking much better. All have been on drugs
    or got skeletons in cupboard?
    Would all be good squatters within #10 on taxpayer expense.
    Who was Twit live on Sky News D Day Coverage? Rank outsider running for PM.
    He celebrating 70th Anniversary on 75th?
    Couldn’t even get dates correct so who ever he is should be good for UK :-\

    1. Not so, LOL

      Prior drug use before entering politics will be seen as “street cred” to the younger Tory party members, are more importantly, to the younger set that the Conservative Party hope to vote their way.
      In a few days, we will have a list of mea culpa activities, with each candidate trying to out do each other.
      “I robbed a bank when I was 17…”
      ” When I was 22, I hit a deer while driving and did not stop…”
      ” I once lifted deer as road kill and sold it to the local butcher….”
      “I once had a part time job in a butchers and sold road kill deer to a pensioner, who later died aged 104….”

      1. @ Duncan,

        I once killed my neighbor’s dog and sold it as halal meet mat meat to a local synagogue mosque…, ‘t was a hoot and a half…

        Circumcised Circumstantial evidence, hearsay at best, of course…

    2. Hilarious that the Tories turn out to be a bunch of stoners. I suppose it’s better than being alcoholics.

      1. It is amusing that there are two versions of the ‘Whitehall’ angle:

        “… in talks with representatives of Sergei Skripal in Whitehall.”

        “We are in discussions with representatives at Whitehall.”

        The second is the actual quote, the first is the ‘journalists’ reporting of the quote. The name ‘Sergei Skripal’ does not appear to have passed the lips of Alistair Cunningham, who is a director at Wiltshire Council. Inclusion of the name is just more journalistic spin!

        “Representatives at Whitehall” means HMG, not representatives of Sergei.

        1. Thanks, Paul. From your account ‘journalistic spin’ might be more accurately described as ‘fabrication’.

        1. It is in his name at the Land Registry so he will have to sign something, or else they need a court order to sell it… but why would they get a court order if he is still alive?

          1. It is possible Whitehall bought the house already.

            https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/salisbury-spy-poisoning-taxpayers-foot-bill-for-sergei-skripals-contaminated-home-rf6stt79l

            “Sergei Skripal’s home and a house belonging to a police officer poisoned in the Salisbury nerve agent attack will be bought by taxpayers in a £1m deal that also includes cars and other family possessions.
            …
            Whitehall officials said Skripal’s home is expected to be bought by the government for about £350,000.
            “

            1. I assume HMG could buy the house by compulsory purchase order. I don’t think this would need a court order, unless Sergei challenged it, and I don’t suppose Sergei is in any position to challenge it.

              1. They can’t just issue a CPO. There must be valid grounds (otherwise people could lose their property on a whim). The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 226, allows compulsory purchase: “to facilitate the carrying out of development, re-development or improvement for the area’s economic, social, or environmental well being.” In addition, a CPO must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

                The process can take years. If Sergei is in the UK and he wants to sell, why can’t he just sign the papers? Why does anyone else need to be involved at all?

                If Sergei isn’t in the UK, then maybe Wiltshire Council needs to be “in discussions with representatives at Whitehall” to decide what to do…

  127. A little off topic. Russian warship turning away from US warship.
    Russian turned Starboard listing Port.
    US warship did same action making a situation.
    Check path of Vessels wake.
    US have a habit of crashing warships in provocation.

    1. Anthony: for an analysis of the recent near-miss of Russian and US warships (which is indeed OT here) see the blog moonofalabama

    1. Interesting. Of course the Independent focuses its headline on the “we should forget it” part. But the really key quote is this:

      “Global issues linked with common national interests in the economic, social and security spheres are more important than games played by intelligence services. I’m talking to you as an expert, believe me..”

      Whenever he makes these sorts of statements, the journalists involved always think he is answering their question on their level, and there will probably be outrage from other media that he talks of an apparent chemical weapons attack as a “game”. What he’s actually doing, though, is sort of answering their question, but actually going over the top of their heads and talking directly to the leaders and intelligence agencies of other countries, in this case British and probably American (and who knows, maybe Ukrainian?). This is precisely what he’s doing here. And here he is putting them on notice that he knows what game was and is being played. Unfortunately for us plebs, we are only left to guess what that is. But we can be sure that there is a game being played.

      1. He is echoing the New York Times Gina Haspel article.

        Trump “had initially written off the poisoning as part of legitimate spy games, distateful but within the bounds of espionage. Some officials said they thought that Mr. Trump, who has frequently criticized “rats” and other turncoats, had some sympathy for the Russian government’s going after someone viewed as a traitor.”

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/gina-haspel-trump.html

        1. As of course he would, they (Putin and Trump) have had to take this out of the UK’s hands and the UK will now be given the blame for their belligerent stance towards Russia nerve gassing a UK city and targeting British citizens.

          Putin in his appeal for the the spy games to end is doing precisely what he is asking others to reject. And he is right when he says he is an expert at it, he can and has run rings around Trump, May was always an irrelevance as will be Johnson or whoever is stupid enough to take the job, whoever that person is who gets the job they will be as terrifically blessed with ego as they are with stupidity.

          The UK has no power, its armed forces are pitiful, industry defeated and the finance industry spreading globally from London and satellites in Jersey, the Isle of Man and the Cayenne Isles etc are no longer controlled by the UK. London is where their Stock Market is based but that’s it.

          The traditional controllers which are American with a heavy non-gentile* influence are flagging and being overrun by the emerging and booming global economies.

          All except the dinosaur necons recognise this as fact. Putin takes it as a given and Trump even with his intellectual impediment has to accept reluctantly that is the only way forward apart from war.

          So as our Calvanist Leader might say (or not) Reformation whether it is wanted or not is going to take place, and the people that manage it will do better out of it than the ones that have it managed for them.

          The world has to change, it is not in Russia’s interest for the US to collapse under its mountains of debt and it is doing. Its not in global interests for the US economy to collapse its results will be disastrous for 100 years plus.

          The only survival strategy for the US is global reformation, the old tactic of having a war is no longer viable (because they will be destroyed), destabilising, espionage, proxy ways, psyops, bulling and hysteria no longer have any sway.

          Reformation is the only alternative, Trumps in, Putin’s in, Xi is in. The UK will do whatever its told and EU have been deliberately distracted. The neocons are out, the non gentiles are out.

          Now its time for them to decide how to slice the cake up and how to get the rest of the world to agree. Good Luck with that.

          * Freedom of speech / Censorship of Opinions has got to the pathetic stage where a nation / religion with global finance / banking influence cannot be mentioned without having a ridiculous slur thrown back or it is removed by automatic filters run by the “Machine”

          It’s time for change

          1. Society has adapted to technological change and embraced it on a domestic, industrial and financial markets level but the control of that society hasn’t adapted to those changes.

            The old thinking, controls, mechanisms, methodologies and rewards a cast off from the industrial revolution and post WWII thinking.

            Technology has changed the wealth balance to an unsustainable level (which we are now seeing the collapse of). And its because the people making the decisions were enjoying the rewards that the Old Model fed them, it worked for them, why change anything? Because now they will be harmed the first and most harshly.

            1. Some excellent points but it may already be too late to stop the collapse of the US empire. US hegemony was based on the US dollar – everyone needed it and it was for many years the settlement currency for all oil transactions worldwide. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Al Gathafi tried to change it but came to a sticky end.

              Dedollarisation is now a fact and is well underway. Russia has divested of almost all is US$ assets and last week China and Russia agreed to conduct bilateral trade in national currencies. It is an unstoppable force:

              https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/07/russia-china-a-strategic-alliance-for-the-21st-century/

              No empire (or reserve currency) lasts forever.

              1. The final collapse comes when the US can no longer print bits of paper and have the world send tangible goods to the US in return. We are not there yet but it will accelerate from here as other countries (India, Iran and elsewhere) join in the process that has already started.

                Even Saudi Arabia has made noises about accepting other forms of payment but while the US continues to supply military hardware, which keeps the Al Saud family in power, that is a threat that will not materialise.

                Which is why Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, is so important to the US (and important to China and Russia too).

                Some years ago, Netanyahu was reported as saying that without Greater Israel, the Jewish people would ultimately not be able to hold onto what they now have and should start looking for a new homeland. From memory this was around 2008/9 but I cannot find a single reference to it any longer on the internet. I am absolutely sure it was once there, however, as I remember commenting on it.

          2. It is your problem if you think there is a difference between a Chinese, Russian, American or British investor, or a Christian, Jewish, Mulism or atheist. Or that the nationality of their passport counts. It basically shows that you are stupid.

            2. That is just wrong! I could give you 50 examples but one will do:

              Paying or charging interest. “All forms of interest are riba and hence prohibited”. Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to prevent use of interest. Investing in businesses involved in activities that are forbidden (haraam).

              Every culture has its preferences.

            3. Can we please avoid the personal charges. You saying: “It basically shows that you are stupid” was completely unnecessary in the first instance and has just backfired and blown up in your face because you were wrong!

              1. On a technical point I didn’t say any of those things, however it is patently evident that there are differences in investors of differing races, colours, cultures and religions.

                I would go further and say two white English investors living next door to each other may have differences in their investment outlook.

                But I didn’t mention investors or the variation in them.

                I didn’t mention passports either but are you seriously suggesting it does not matter which passport(s) you carry.

                A new low in the ‘mire I am afraid. If on the back foot shout Rape! Or even better Anti-semite.

                1. It was just a really bad post altogether! We could come up with dozens of examples to prove it wrong: muslims in Tesco refusing to sell or even touch alcohol; liberals refusing to invest in various countries; funds avoiding investments in tobacco; etc etc.. It is all completely mad and all based on prejudice and cultural differences.

                  1. Yes I accept that but I didn’t say what I was accused of saying.

                    In the vitriolic and abusive response the accuser spewed he /she revealed their lack of understanding of English, geopolitical principals, religious complexities and good manners.

          3. Sorry Anonymous, you lost me when you got to the “non-gentile” part. I don’t want to see this kind of stuff on Rob’s blog.

            1. John a there are plenty of things I don’t want to see on this blog and elsewhere.

              The issue you refer to is caused on blogs by someone mentioning or are critical of Israel or their faith.

              The stock responses are “Anti-semite” or the auto filter blocks the post because of the most accepted word is blocked.

              It wasn’t me that created this situation but if I now have to refer to that particular people / religion I shall refer to them as non-gentiles if you decide to take offence then that is up to you.

              No offence is intended unlike the worn out abuse term “Anti-semite”.

    1. Excellent
      A must watch.
      Were the CCTV timestamps on Sergei’s car correct?
      I don’t remember that detail.
      Great video.

      1. Excellent video, and an excellent free 300-page book too!

        (PS – Shh! Anon – 999 is not me, but an anonymous usurper/infiltrator. I’m the Anon – xxx/xxxx/xxxxx whose name begins with M, usually. Operating deep cover, on my Controller’s orders).

      2. The Met informed us that the India Road private CCTV timestamp was off by an hour plus and told us the “correct” time the image of Skripal’s car was taken. Possibly one time when the Met didn’t lie as they also showed up the Devizes Rd private CCTV with it’s timestamp at approximately 13:35.

        1. They only lie when they feel they need to, Marie i.e. when lying enhances the Cause. Occasionally they’ve been known to tell the truth, but serving the Cause means that they are very sparing with it.

        2. Possibly Marie, possibly not.

          The video shows Skripal’s car going up India Avenue towards Devizes Road and the time stamp on the video is 14:55 on 4th March. It was filmed from a private CCTV on the side of a house. The police corrected the film to about 13:32 to fit in with their timescale of the Skripals getting to Sainsbury’s at 13:40.

          I’m not 100% convinced. There’s still quite a lot of snow on the ground — there’s even some on the road still. Most of the snow melted on the Saturday, as the temperature rose to about 5 degrees. Then on the Sunday, the temperature was at 4-5 degrees as early as 6 in the morning and up to about 9 degrees by midday. Yes, you would still get the odd patch around, but there’s a fair amount still in that garden, and a bit still on the road.

          If you’d asked me when it was taken without knowing anything else about it, I’d have said the morning of the 4th March at the very latest. I really don’t think there was that much snow still left at 13:30.

          I may be wrong, but my hunch is that it shows the Skripals going out in the morning, not in the afternoon.

          Rob

          1. No video of the morning trip to the cemetery back home via the shell garage,Devizes Inn or India Ave

            To help with the timings the story put out that the India Ave cctv was said to be 1 hr 22 mins fast and the pub cctv was 3 mins slow.

            This allowed Sergei to be barnying with waiters in Zizzi and not driving at 14:55

            If the pub cctv timestamp had been left at 13:32 instead of the amended 13:35 then the 13:40 would not be quite right.

            The new reality became Sergei and Yulia left home just after 1:30 passed the India Ave CCTV at 1:33 and the pub at 1:35, parked in Sainsburys car park and bought at ticket at 13:40 and fed some ducks (and a boy) at 13:45

            So in less than 15 minutes after closing the front door they were feeding ducks and interacting with 3 children.

          2. If the India Avenue video had showed the Skripas driving in the morning, then there may be another theory as to why the Skripals’ knowledge of what had happened to them is different from the UK government’s door-handle tale. Previously, I had one theory: the Skripals were sprayed with a substance near The Mill, so they knew that it was not the door handle. But if the Skripals had not driven through India Avenue in the afternoon, that implies that they did not return home from the morning trip to the cemetery (Anonymous’ remark in the comment of 12:03 pm is helpful: “No video of the morning trip…”) The Skripals did and do know that they did not return home after they had left it in the morning. So they could not touch the door handle after noon. This opens the possibility that they were poisoned in The Mill, with spiked drinks.

            It is a question what the Skripals were doing after they visited the cemetery and before they arrived to the Sainsbury car park. One suggestion is that they might have been at a Christian Orthodox liturgy. The Sunday of 4 March was close to Skripal’s late son Alexander’s birthday, which is 1 March. And the Skripals are believers (Orthodox icons in Yulia’s car seen by journalists and the cross on the wall in Skripal’s Russian home seen on a family photograph.)

  130. Did the psychopathic Deep State (CIA/MI6) murder Dawn Sturgess and attempt to murder Charlie Rowley on June 30, 2018, to get Trump to take notice of the alleged Skripal attack because he was reluctant to expel many Russian diplomats from the US, after it?

    Did they up the anti with Dawn’s murder because the initial Skripal poisoning claims were dismissed by Trump as just being ‘spy games’ and that meant that their original March 4, 2018 Russia poison hoax was a failure.

    “Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. “There were curse words,” the official said, “a lot of curse words”.

    The lies he was also told over the dead duck and poisoned kids pics wouldn’t have helped their cause of imposing tough sanctions etc either, when Trump found out about those.

    The Deep State and Integrity Initiative desperately wanted Trump to further bomb Syria, impose more draconian sanctions on Russia and prevent him from moving the US closer to Putin.

    “Trump reportedly wrote off Skripal poisoning as business as usual among spies and was at first reluctant to expel 60 Russians”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/16/trump-novichok-attack-skripal-poisoning-spy-game

    “Donald Trump ‘shown pictures of children hospitalised by Novichok to persuade him to act against Russia'”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/16/donald-trump-shown-pictures-children-hospitalised-novichok-attack/

    1. The CPS thought think they have enough evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the two Russian suspects were guilty of:

      • Conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal
      • Attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey
      • Use and possession of Novichok contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act
      • Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey

      But no mention of Dawn and Charlie

      There is no doubt that Dawn was murdered, if you put a nerve agent in a perfume bottle and leave it somewhere where it can be found and used, you know that person stands a very good chance of being killed, that is the intention.

      Were Dawn and Charlie targeted? I think so. Whether Charlie found the perfume bottle in the bin, I am not sure (neither is he). My suspicion is that it was dropped into his jacket pocket somewhere, Charlie remembers he had “carried it around for a couple of days” in his jacket pocket before the incident in Amesbury.

      The Amesbury incident appears to have been a vehicle to fan the ebbing flames, the police were unable for whatever reason to issue their evidence against Petrov and Boshirov despite having gained samples from the City Stay Hotel on the 4th May (two months after the incident) and had them positively identified by Porton Down as the Novichok used in Salisbury. The police had the cctv of them in multiple locations, they had not however recovered the container that the attackers had used, they knew it was somewhere but they kept that information secret.

      Secret, that is, until Dawn was killed.

      Despite having confirmed Novichok traces in the hotel on the 4th May the police left it open for business. No risks to staff or guests.

      The March 2018 Russian elections went very well for Putin, Europe was still resisting US aggression towards their stance of wanting to buy cheap gas from Russia via Nord Stream 2 (Europe were not put off from doing business with Russia) and England were doing extremely well in the fantastically popular Russian World Cup.

      The Skripal pantomime was fizzling out. It needed a boost.

      1. “Use and possession of Novichok” – that is not what the OPCW reported, they said “nerve agent or similar compound” also Novichok was on the OPCW database but whatever was used in Amesbury was not added until January 2019. So whatever it was that was in the bottle, it wasn’t “Novichok”.

        Looks like P&B get off on a technicality.

          1. Reading that now, it rather looks like including the name “Novichok” was a PR exercise! Section 1 of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, actually says:

            General interpretation.
            (1) Chemical weapons are—
            (a) toxic chemicals and their precursors;
            (b) …

            And ‘toxic chemicals’ are defined as:
            “(5) A toxic chemical is a chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, permanent harm or temporary incapacity to humans or animals; and the origin, method of production and place of production are immaterial.”

            So instead of saying: “Use and possession of Novichok contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act”, the charge sheet should really say: “Use and possession of a toxic chemical contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act.”

            https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/6/section/1

            1. Most definitely it is a PR exercise. After all, what is “Novichok”? It is, as far as I know, a generic term (used by Western Governments) for a group of nerve agents, rather than a particular substance, and there is no accepted definition as to which substances are included within it.

              1. As far as I recall, Yulia’s first public statement uses the word “incapacitant” in terms lifted directly from the OPCW Convention. But I’ve been wrong about these things before!

                1. begob

                  ” Incapacitant ” sounds a bit non descript as against the deadly ( as in it kills you ) Novichok.

                  Drink makes some people ” incapacitated ” but drinking Novichock would do more than incapacitate you.

                  I wonder what actually over – ” incapacitated ” Dawn?

                  1. The point is that incapacitant is a vague yet specified term in the legal basis for the OPCW’s remit, but not a word any hospital in-patient would use.

        2. Paul,

          Actually, the OPCW did not even say this. It was Porton Down that referred to “a nerve agent or related compound” and “a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent” in their evidence to the High Court on 22nd March.

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

          The OPCW, on the other hand, not only have not ever used the word “Novichok” in their summaries of the two cases, but they only used the term nerve agent twice, and in extremely odd ways. In the Salisbury case, they said:

          “…involving a toxic chemical—allegedly a nerve agent.”

          https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e___1_.pdf

          And in the Amesbury case — and this is really bizarre:

          “The toxic chemical compound, which displays the toxic properties of a nerve agent, is the same toxic chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury.”

          https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018/09/s-1671-2018%28e%29.pdf

          So in fact the OPCW did not confirm the use of “Novichok”. Nor did they confirm the use of a nerve agent. They simply say that the substance was allegedly a nerve agent and that it displayed the properties of a nerve agent. Whatever that means!

          Rob

          1. OPCW advice on Nerve Agents

            http://web.archive.org/web/20170711060845/https://www.opcw.org/protection/types-of-chemical-agent/nerve-agents/

            “Poisoning takes longer when the nerve agent enters the body through the skin. Nerve agents are more or less fat-soluble and can penetrate the outer layers of the skin. However, it takes some time before the poison reaches the deeper blood vessels. Consequently, the first symptoms do not occur until 20-30 minutes after the initial exposure but subsequently the poisoning process may be rapid if the total dose of nerve agent is high.”

            1. Porton Down (PHE) advice specifically on the Chemical found in Salisbury and Amesbury

              https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2630419/amesbury-incident-novichok-could-be-active-for-50-years/

              “Speaking in regards to how long it would take before the affects of the nerve agent would come into effect on a person, Public Health England Medical Director Paul Cosford said:

              “If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum (that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be in touch with a large dose.””

              1. When challenged regarding their advice PHE clarified what they really meant

                https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/539752/response/1289350/attach/html/2/968%20FOI%20Public%20advice%20on%20Novichok.pdf.html

                “Both statements are correct, but answer different questions.

                2) PHE “This Stuff” (Novichok) presents its symptoms (through skin contact) between 3 (minimum) and 12 hours The minimum 3 hours is for contact with a very high quantity.

                1
                OPCW: Symptoms will appear through skin contact (Nerve agents in general) between 20 and 30 minutes.

                The PHE statement gives (1) an upper limit to the time within which symptoms might appear after exposure to the lowest dose likely to still be able to give clinical symptoms (12 hours); and (2) the upper limit to the time within which symptoms are likely to arise after exposure to a quantity likely to cause severe clinical harm (3 hours).

                The OPCW statement refers to the average time likely to be taken for symptoms to appear where exposure to a high dose has occurred (that is one that is likely to cause significant illness).

                Again, both statements are correct, but answer different questions.”

                Talk about tying themselves in knots

                Compare this with what the Director of PHE originally said;

                “If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum (that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be in touch with a large dose.””

                So 6 – 12 hours Maximum, that symptoms would occur with a SIGNIFICANT Dose

                And 3 Hours MINIMUM when you have been in touch with a LARGE Dose

                A Complaint regarding this response is currently with the Information Commissioners Office

                1. Its a bit like Cludo isn’t it?

                  We know it wasn’t the Skripals
                  We know it wasn’t Novichok
                  We know it wasn’t the Russians
                  And we know the Door Handle was not used

                  1. So my answer is

                    The UK (working on behalf of the US) did it
                    At the bench
                    They used a binary Incapacitant as the weapon
                    On two stooges

          2. Thanks Rob. You are (of course) quite right.

            The OPCW never said ‘Novichok’ (the word does not even appear in its report and the only mention of ‘nerve agent’ is the one you quote above) but it did say: “…the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury…”

            We still do not know what that ‘toxic chemical’ was but if P&B were ever to face charges, it would have to be revealed and I am sure neither The Met nor HMG wants that.

            1. The chemical formula has been revealed by the OPCW when they put out a press release on the intention to form two new categories of chemicals in their register because both did not fit into any existing chemical families in the register.

              One of the new chemicals was the one found in Salisbury and Amesbury. Russia wanted to add more than a dozen more but they were told to shut up and go away.

              The chemical formulae published mean nothing to me but by the guidelines that the OPCW put forward for nerve agents and what Porton Down actually said it was the chemical used in Wiltshire does not appear to be a Nerve Agent and therefore not a Novichok

              1. @Anonymous @Duncan

                Peter Wilson’s speech to OPCW on 14 January, 2019 confirmed that the chemical used in Salisbury and Amesbury is the family of chemicals that were added to the OPCW’s database in January 2019:

                “Which brings us to the substance of our meeting today, namely the joint proposal from the Netherlands, Canada and the USA to add two closely related families of chemicals to Schedule 1A of the Convention. We commend the thorough and objective review of the proposal by Technical Secretariat which confirms that:
                • first: the criteria for including toxic chemicals on Schedule 1A have been met
                • second: the procedural requirements of the Convention have been followed
                • and third: that the proposal is consistent with the advice of the Scientific Advisory Board
                We have discussed the joint proposal with the co-sponsors and I want to state very clearly that the UK fully supports it. The proposal covers the chemical weapon that was used in my country less than a year ago. It was intended to cause death and tragically it did so. The reports from the Technical Assistance Visits following the appalling events in Salisbury and Amesbury not only confirmed the identity of the substance involved, but also its high toxicity. The two closely related families of chemicals have no identified legitimate civilian use.”
                https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/62nd-executive-council-meeting-of-the-opcw

                Has Duncan seen the details of the chemicals added to OPCW’s database? Do we know what they were?

                2. Paul,

                  I have seen them.
                  Liane sourced the PDF at the start of the year.
                  I emailed Rob this afternoon, so if you want to see it, then let him know.
                  It is not illuminating.
                  Just stating the obvious that molecules with Phosphorus, Fluorine, Oxygen atoms in small Hydrocarbons, containing a A234 type structures with longer carbon side chains should be considered to be Chemical Weapons.
                  In reality the longer the side chain, the less toxic the chemical will be.
                  Smaller is better in the tox world.

                    1. Speaking about A-230 & A-232, the ‘tecky paper’ notes: “This agent … circumvented the list of chemical agents controlled by the CWC because it belonged to the series of phosphoramidofluoridates.”

                      In his 2014 book: “Best Synthetic Methods: Organophosphorus (V) Chemistry”, Dr. Chris Timperley deals with the preparation of alkyl phosphoramidic fluorides on page 141. On pages 547 he explains the preparation of alkyl phosphoramidofluoridates.

                      The 2016 publication: “Issues in Toxicology – Chemical warfare toxicology” notes research on phosphoramidofluoridates as nerve agents.

                      What is the missing step here? If these materials were already being produced in the UK in 2014 and their use as nerve agents was known, why would it have taken until 2019 for these agents to be added to the OPCW database?

                      As Anonymous notes above, Russia wanted other chemicals added to the OPCW database but this was refused. Does anyone know what the database is actually supposed to be a record of and at what point must new agents be advised to the OPCW, so that they can be included in the database?

                    3. From your link:

                      “He has published more than 50 papers in the scientific literature and has recently authored a book on organophosphorus chemistry.”

                      That book is the one I have mentioned above.

                      Where did Treasonous Mayhem get the idea that ‘only Russia’ could have made the chemicals identified by Porton Down, when ‘how to make’ chemicals of the same type is detailed in a book which is noted on an HMG website?

      2. No mention of Dawn & Charlie…
        Maybe this was because they merely served the needs of the Cause at the time and were expendable. The Cause now finds them something of an embarrassment – better forgotten, rendered obsolete and swept under the bureaucratic carpet of expedience along with many decades of similar embarrassments. After all, the memory of Joe Public is short-lived, and easily diverted by the fake news of the day.

    2. Obviously, this was a leaked story, and to know if it is true, you would have to be in the room with Trump and Gina Haspel.

      Who would feel the need to signal that Trump is under “adult supervision”?

  131. The New York Times apologises, and now explians the photos as “generic” (Have they been reading this Blogmire thread?):

    Haspel, instead, presented the president with generic images illustrating the harmful effects of some nerve agents, while the British claims of sick kids and poisoned birds were based on “early intelligence reports,” the corrected story says.

    While the Times amended the story and added an editor’s note, the paper apparently forgot to scrub a photo caption describing a “slipshod attack that also sickened children, killed ducks and required careful cleanup.”

    https://www.rt.com/news/461250-new-york-times-corrects-skripal-novichok/

    How low in integrity can the MSM and US/UK governments get? No wonder there was a dire of an Integrity Initiative. But unfortunately, their beloved II’s aims are to ensure that UKG performs with ,minimum integrity.

  132. When I asked my son what had happened to the vase that lay in tatters at my feet the following exchange took place:

    Phase 1: he told me, in great detail, why it was impossible for him to have done it or be involved in the destruction of the vase.

    I looked him in th eye and said, “OK. I get it. It was an accident. Tell me how it happened…”

    Phase 2: As it turned out, he and his sister were playing some sort of ‘dodge ball on the run,’ inside the house. That he actually aimed to hit his sister in the head, but had missed, unfortunately…

    We had a good laugh at it.

    Julian Barnes, however, is still stuck in phase one.

    Aka, ‘The Bull Biscuits’ episode.

    1. USA piling Assange with more charges:

      “The Trump administration is so desperate to build its case against Assange that it is using a diagnosed sociopath, a convicted conman and sex criminal, who was exposed by the highest levels of the Icelandic government as an FBI informant and who was involved in an entrapment operation in 2011 against Julian Assange”

      https://sputniknews.com/europe/201906071075706798-wikileaks-assange-press-release-conman/

      https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/06/07/assa-j07.html

      Being psychopaths themselves, they’ll stop at nothing to ruin his life. They are utterly ruthless and lack all sense of humanity, integrity and decency… and they aim to rule the world.

      1. It’s now nothing to do with Assange it is simply an overt announcement that if you leak US secrets you will be destroyed.

        It doesn’t matter if what you leaked related to illegal actions by US government employees, if that information was classified secret, you will be hunted down.

        There will be no let up and no bounds to the ruthlessness of the retributions.

        The ozzies seem to be in on the act to by raiding the homes and work place of journalists, they don’t just want the journalists they want their sources. This is why journalists are so willing to go along with whatever they are told. Fear, cowardice and egos are what keeps the profession in check and the likes of Assange will help them remember why.

        1. You have to ask why the British and Australians are in Afghanistan but regardless of that answer when stuff like this happens …….

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-11/killings-of-unarmed-afghans-by-australian-special-forces/8466642

          Or alleged to have happened ….. if we don’t have a press that is able to investigate and report without fear of government interference and punishment then there is no point to a press.

          But the people of the US UK , Australia and elsewhere have voted in the politicians who have allowed / engineered this to happen.

          In the UK, after Blair’s illegal wars were exposed he was voted back to office twice more.

          If we vote for this as a nation, knowing the recent history, then who have we got to blame? The psychopaths that we vote for or ourselves?

        2. I agree with that. A corollary is that the latest indictments against Assange are an admission by the USA that any extradition request will be refused. All Assange has to do is point to the crazy evil of American intelligence services and their client judges, and argue that there’s an unacceptable risk of unfair trial and cruel and unusual punishment for simply publishing. And that’s before he even broaches the subject of freedom of information.

          So it looks like another case of Washington pointing the finger with no intention of seeing justice done. Abuse of power.

        3. Agreed. Nothing to do with Assange but everything to do with the Message. He’s expendable, a mere tool being used to serve the Message of the Greater Cause.

  133. I would like to say something about the more or less direct accusations that Julian Barnes makes against the UK side in his new version of the story.
    He says this on the subject :

    Barnes on Twitter :
    „British officials did brief the Trump administration about early reports of dead ducks & sick children. Officials sought more info, believing such intel would be persuasive to Trump, who was skeptical of the proposed expulsion of 60 Russians in response to the attack.
    But Haspel did not brief the president on that intelligence.
    The intelligence about the ducks and children were based on an early intelligence report, according to people familiar with the matter. The intelligence was presented to the US in an effort to share all that was known, not to deceive the Trump administration.“

    Barnes in his corrected NYT article :
    „The British government had told Trump administration officials about early intelligence reports that said children were sickened and ducks were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
    The information was based on early reporting, and Trump administration officials had requested more details about the children and ducks, a person familiar with the intelligence said, though Ms. Haspel did not present that information to the president.“

    Let’s summarize his statements :
    There was an early intelligence report about sick children and dead ducks = MI5/6 or Met.
    This early intelligence report was given to the British government = Theresa May.
    The British government made their own intelligence report based on the early intelligence report.
    The British government briefed the Trump administration with their own intelligence report about the early intelligence report.
    But Haspel did not brief the president on that intelligence.
    Instead the Trump administration officials had requested more details about the children and ducks.

    Trump administration = Gina Haspel.
    It can only be Gina Haspel, because it was she who decided not to present the UK information to the president.
    So Barnes wants to make us believe that Gina Haspel requested more details about the children and ducks from the UK government.
    And we’re supposed to get the impression that Gina was the one who extracted the “strong option” from Donald Trump.
    How likely is that ?

    A timeline :

    March 12 at 1 p.m.: Speaking to the House of Commons in London, Prime Minister Theresa May declares that the British government finds it “highly likely” that Russia was to blame …

    March 12 at 3:14 p.m.: Sarah Sanders condemns poisoning of ex-spy in U.K. but declines to accuse Russia despite statements from PM Theresa May. pic.twitter.com/NDGtSiLxab
    — Axios (@axios) March 12, 2018

    March 12 at 6:56 p.m.: The Associated Press reports that Tillerson, while flying back to Washington from Nigeria, told reporters that the nerve agent “came from Russia” and that the attack seemed to be part of “a certain unleashing of activity that we don’t fully understand.”

    March 13 at 8:44 a.m.: Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2018

    March 13 at 9:32 a.m.: “As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be” – President Trump on Salisbury poisoning https://t.co/fiPPBhAZFc pic.twitter.com/wv5kWRIK2e
    — BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) March 13, 2018
    https://theintercept.com/2018/03/13/tillerson-fired-trump-hours-blaming-russia-chemical-attack-uk/

    March 13, 2018
    “President Trump agreed with Prime Minister May that the Government of the Russian Federation must provide unambiguous answers regarding how this chemical weapon, developed in Russia, came to be used in the United Kingdom,” the White House said in a statement about the two leaders’ phone call.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia/britains-may-wins-backing-of-trump-eu-leaders-in-showdown-with-russia-idUSKCN1GP0PG

    March 13, 2018
    Donald Trump has told Theresa May that America will be “with the UK all the way” as she decides how to respond to the poisoning of a Russian former spy on British soil.
    https://www.politicshome.com/news/world/united-states/donald-trump/news/93601/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-america-uk-all-way

    March 15, 2018
    In a rare joint statement, President Donald Trump, President Emmanual Macron, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Theresa May said Thursday there was “no plausible alternative explanation” to Russian responsibility in the March 4 attack in England.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-britain-russia-novichok-nerve-agent-attack-ex-spy-sergei-skripal/

    March 15, 2018
    Nikki Haley, the permanent US representative to the UN, called on Moscow to “fully co-operate” with the investigation into the nerve agent attack in Salisbury as the UN Security Council met on Wednesday after an urgent request from the UK to update members.
    Britain said earlier on Wednesday that it would expel 23 Russian diplomats who are undeclared spies and suspend all high-level contact with Moscow, in the first retaliation for suspected Russian involvement in the attack on Mr Skripal.
    https://www.ft.com/content/74d20e9e-2778-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0

    It was Theresa May who has held the reins. NOBODY ELSE !
    She has personally contrived everything at the highest level – with the heads of state.
    A certain Gina Haspel was not needed to convince Trump.
    The NYT article has nothing to do with truth. It was written to humiliate Trump.

    However: Theresa May I give credit for the use of dirty tricks to achieve a desired goal. For example fake pictures.
    And that is one of her insignificant lies in the Skripal case.

    2. There was a report, confirmed, I understand that some ducks had been found dead around the time of the incident in the area.

      Precisely how many and where was not mentioned or did not grip into my memory.

      But there was an “official” response to those reports saying yes some ducks had been found dead but in was a bacterial or virus contributor that was to blame. Or something that Porton Down are probably familiar with.

      The reason I have not gone back and checked chapter and verse is that nothing in this pitiful tale is remotely trustworthy.

      I was even alerted to a dead dog rumour by inquiry of what I had heard (absolutely true) (at the scene) quite likely a sniffer dog allergic to BS met his last challenge I presumed.

      No truth is going to come out of the MSM, Government or Police, they have demonstrated that resolve time and time again.

    3. Liane,

      I think that to understand the intended purpose of the NYT story, and Barnes’ writing of it (for domestic US consumption — I think he and his sponsors forgot about the Skripal events having stirred controversy, and forgot to check to see if the controversy was still current) you have to go back to the beginning of Trump’s Presidency, to, specifically, his Mar A Lago hosting of President Xi, at which he announced, to Xi, over “a nice piece of chocolate cake” that some 60 missiles had just been launched against Syria…

      That is the Trump style. Looking for it you will find it recurrent, from reneging the existing treaty contract with Iran, that the US, not Trump, was party to, and right through to his launch of Juan Guaidó against the government of Venezuela.

      From the pattern you will recognise that the Trump assault against two pieces of Russian owned real property and expulsion of 60 diplomatic personnel was Trump style, not something Gina Haspel, or anyone else, would have to ‘convince’ him to do. The “Melania upset by Syrian children being gassed” line the Barnes stories hang on for their characterisations of Trump was a “post-op” explanation (which Melania never confirmed).

      I think the purpose of the Barnes first story was to message those in the US concerned with such that Trump was under control, that Haspel, along with Pompeo and Bolton, were ‘up to the task’ of keeping Trump on course…

    4. The Skripal affair is all a weird circumlocution! The only person we can accuse of the Lie Direct is May, but she lied under parliamentary privilege. None of them is stupid – they just think we are.

      Liane, do you have a view on the role Pompeo played? As I understand it, he was Haspel’s boss at the time.

  135. Rarely do you see an ‘apology’ that is such an obvious lie. In his Twitter posts Barnes starts:

    “I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel” – Barnes didn’t make any error, he did what he always does, copied down what he had been told. Whoever did make the error, it wasn’t him.

    “It took a while to figure out where I went wrong” – With everybody screaming that “no ducks died!” Barnes couldn’t figure out the problem with the piece?

    Then there is the middle bit which is hardly credible – some more stuff he had to write down that someone else had told him and then we get to the end:

    “This correction was delayed because conducting the research to figure out what I got wrong, how I got it wrong and what was the correct information took time.” Really? Research? What sort of ‘research’ could he possibly do other than phone his first source? How long would that take? And how could he ‘research’ what was ‘the correct information’? All he did was get a new source and he dutifully wrote it all down again.

    Whatever the Twitter posts are supposed to be, they are not an apology – but then just writing stuff down that he was told, isn’t journalism either.

  136. This explanation is laughable. Is Trump so stupid he can’t imagine a dead duck? He has to be shown a generic dead duck.
    And what genuine photos are there of human victims of nerve agent attacks?
    The pressure exerted by SIS on NYT to concoct this crock speaks volumes.

  137. One might suggest the ducks and children NYT story was part of an operation to shield Liar-in-Chief Donald Trump from massive push-back once the Skripal false flag finally collapses – faster than the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

    And of course, people must never stop asking: “Where are the Skripals?”

  138. The Daily Record had a different version of the duck feed.
    Initially I wondered if amazingly, this could be Haspel’s source.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/russian-kids-fall-ill-after-12247329

    So, I contacted the ACTUAL WRITER of the piece.
    Below, is his version.

    On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Alan Selby wrote:
    Hi Duncan, I wrote this story for the Sunday Mirror – I’m not a reporter for the Daily Record. If the Record subsequently used it and altered the headline and / or the content and rendered it inaccurate then it’s regrettable.

    —
    Alan Selby
    Reporter, Sunday Mirror
    alan.selby@mirror.co.uk
    Mob: 07920 250601
    Twitter: @SelbyMirror

    1. Thanks, Paul !
      The photos make it possible to look into a tormented soul.
      I send him consoling power.

  140. It is extremely funny on many levels.

    The New York Times tried first to praise anti-Russian policy without praising Trump who actually did it. It was not his decision but the British fed CIA director made him do it.
    Trump could live with that. It might help him should he come to an agreement with Russia which is the strategic thing to do, if he wants to concentrate on China. It might even be the reason why this was leaked to the New York Times.

    But now Russiagate has turned into Ukrainegate, Victor Pinchuk and the Clinton Foundation plus Joe Biden whom Trump seems to have made out as the likeliest contender for the presidential election.
    And Britain and its CIA station chief are part of it.

    This here is the Guardian May 8,218
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/gina-haspel-cia-director-atone-past
    ” Furthermore, Haspel is seen as a Russia expert and a close ally of Britain’s MI6, having being London station chief from 2014 to 2017. She is reported to have insisted on the forceful US response in solidarity with the UK, to the poisoning of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, using a nerve agent that is alleged to have originated from Russian government laboratories.
    CIA insiders hope that Haspel will insulate the agency from Trump’s indulgent approach to Vladimir Putin. But to achieve that Haspel will have to prove on Wednesday that she, and the agency she seeks to run, have atoned for their past. “

  141. Duncan, you posted in April that you were in contact with one of the NYT journalists and that they stood by the story. Can you give more details of what you were told and by whom?

    1. Brendan, Julian Barnes himself was the man.
      I still believe his first version of the story is what he actually thought had happened at the Trump-Haspel presentation.
      His sources were good, but now, as Rob eloquently stated, he is in the hole with only a shovel as his friend.
      He replied to an email I sent him last night, and very shortly after, we had the “corrected” version put out there.
      The Twitter storm was quite a sight today.

      1. Duncan, it’s remarkable that Mr Barnes had enough confidence to tell you that he (or the NYT) could stand by the story, even though British officials contradicted it.

        Not just Wiltshire Council but also ‘UK security sources’ (according to Deborah Haynes) said that no children or ducks were poisoned by Novichok.
        https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1118409471754153984

        And now – about seven weeks after the “sick childen and dead ducks” story was debunked – he states that it was all a misunderstanding. Apparently there was some mixing up of two different reports – one that the UK gave to the USA and the other one that Haspel gave to Trump.

        Of course, the report that the CIA director (Haspel) presented to the US President was 100% factually correct! The UK experts didn’t even know who was poisoned in a nerve gant attack on British soil, weeks earlier, if we’re to believe the New York Times.

  142. Julian Barnes explains: “This correction was delayed because of the time needed for research”. This claim is incomplete at best.

    If the false statement about the pictures was just a genuine error, then the only thing that Barnes had to do was to contact his sources to check the details. That should not take six weeks.

    The fact that he needed so much time to ‘research’ the story of the pictures confirms what many of us have known – that someone was lying. It took six weeks for someone to modify the story to make it more believable.

      1. Well whoever it was, it was not just a ‘slip’. Too much of the article depends on those pictures existing. For example: “Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks” – that only works with THOSE specific pictures.

        The re-write makes Haspel look dumb: thinking that it would be useful to show some random pictures to the President, as if he didn’t already know!

        The re-write also destroys Barnes reputation – what a completely worthless piece he has written!

        Nobody (on their side) comes out of this looking good.

      2. If he wasn’t lying how did he come to write that story?

        The most rudimentary research would have told him;

        1) Aiden and his friends were not harmed or

        2) The UK government suppressed the fact that some other children were poisoned by Novichok in Salisbury whilst putting out advice that there was very little risk to the public.

        The first would have meant he had to go back and check the facts and verify the story.

        The second would have given him a far bigger story than the one he went with

        So he is either a liar, holds his readership in such contempt not to Google “Salisbury Skripal Novichok Ducks Children” or indeed do any fact checking or he stumbled on a massive story of the UK suppressing the danger Novichok posed to the public and decided to spin it to harm the President’s and Haspel’s reputation

        Whatever he should not be employed.

      3. Barnes and other NYT journalists are just conduits for lies from government and intelligence agencies.

    2. Moon of Alabama also comments on the problem with the explanation:

      “Barnes covers national security and intelligence issues for the Times Washington bureau. His job depends on good access to ‘sources’ in those circles.

      It is remarkable that the CIA spokesperson never came out to deny the original NYT report. There was zero visible push back against its narrative. It is also remarkable that the correction comes just as Trump is on a state visit in Britain.

      The original report was sourced on ‘people briefed on the conversation’. The corrected version is also based on ‘people briefed on the conversation’ but adds ‘a person familiar with the intelligence’. Do the originally cited ‘people’ now tell a different story? Are we to trust a single ‘person familiar with the intelligence’ more than those multiple ‘people’? What kind of ‘research’ did the reporter do to correct what he then and now claims was told to him by ‘people’? Why did this ‘research’ take eight weeks?”
      https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/odd-nyt-correction-exculpates-british-government-and-cia-from-manipulating-trump-over-skripal-novich.html

      1. It’s amazing what was not corrected or clarified in the Skripal case by the UK authorities or press;

        Bailey first responder
        Who the Doctor / Nurse was
        Yulia being flown to hospital by the Air Ambulance
        The order of The Mill / Zizzis
        The omission of the Duck Feed & Children
        Dr Stephen Davies Times Statement
        Freya Church’s and Ollie Fieild’s evidence re the female on the bench hair colour did not match Yulia’s
        Complete absence of inquiry in the press re the withholding of vital cctv evidence particularly when the police were issuing appeals to the public for assistance.
        No evidence that could constitute proof that the Russians were involved.
        Conflict in advice from PHE and the OPCW re the time for Nerve Agents to take effect (20 – 30 minutes vs 3 – 12 hours)
        etc etc etc

        The press on both sides of the Atlantic have abandoned inquiry into the official story and the irreconcilable statements givin by the authorities.

        We no longer expect to be told the truth.

        That’s what they want.

  143. I had saved the original New York Times article on my hard disk, but if I now try to read this copy, I get the message “Page Not Found”. Does anybody know an efficient way to save a copy of an article in such a way that the copy doesn’t depend on the original site ? Thanks in advance.

    2. If you still have a problem, I can upload the whole article to a site from which you will be able to download it. Just ask if needed.

      1. Thanks for this offer, Paul. I would take advantage of it with gratitude, and perhaps some other readers would do the same.

  144. The NYT still hasn’t corrected the caption for one of its photos:

    “A former Russian intelligence officer, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were poisoned last year in Britain in a slipshod attack that also sickened children, killed ducks and required careful cleanup.”

    In the article itself, the NYT corrects the false statement about the sickened children:

    “After this article was published, local health officials in Britain said that no children were harmed.”

    The updated article is vague about whether or not ducks were killed, but Wiltshire council’s director of public health made it clear that “No wildlife were impacted” (so no dead ducks):

    “There were no other casualties other than those previously stated. No wildlife were impacted by the incident and no children were exposed to or became ill as a result of either incident.”

  145. Well done, Mr. Slane, top marks.

    That’s one of the signs of a decaying societal construct, the regime-backing hacks, vacuous of moral values, professional dignity and even the basic principles of the journalistic code of conduct constructing lies, deceptions, resorting to half truths. It will do for the brainless and those who know but pretend because pretending keeps their jobs, pensions, sinecures. Tragic really.

    1. Baron, a phrase I may borrow.

      “signs of a decaying societal construct”

      My typical version is “another indication of the deterioration of the fabric of societal norms”

      Sadly your post is too true.

  146. Well done Rob! All your hard work over many months (and that of your contributors) shows how digging away to get to the truth can gain traction. Meanwhile where has the money for Salisbury’s ‘recovery’ gone? All I can see is that ridiculous plastic Stonehenge chair that gets shuffled around every couple of weeks. And some nice photo mock ups of a Maltings redevelopment that is unsustainable and will never come to pass!

  147. Intriguing that they went to such absurd effort to save their torturing hero and even then can’t get it right. Too much cool aid for Julian Barnes and Adam Goldman. The NYT is just one ridiculous shill rag but it wont stop the cash flowing in from Integrity Initiative to ofset the wages cost for these two ‘journalists’.

  148. The technique they (NYT, USG, Mueller . . . ) are using is called gaslighting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting ) simply repeat over and over again unsubstantiated ‘facts,’ never acknowledging that there is any reason to substantiate these so called ‘facts’. When called out, not acknowledging that they have been called out. If they ‘feel’ that they need to quasi-correct the record, doing so in a forum that is not directly linked to the original artificial. That way when or if any researcher in the future looks into the matter, all that is available to them is these narratives that have been repeated over and over and over again.

    Bottom line, they are not just trying to gaslight us, they are trying to sway the way the history of this and other stories are written.

  149. In the „corrected“ NYT version is this sentence :
    „Ms. Haspel was not the first to use emotional appeals to the president. She and Mr. Pompeo showed Mr. Trump images of children sickened by chemical weapons attacks in Syria, in an earlier presentation.“

    I asked myself when this „earlier presentation“ by Haspel and Pompeo should be.
    But wait – the words „not the first“ contain an embedded link.

    The link leads to this April 15, 2017 NYT article :
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-white-house.html?module=inline

    There is only ONE sentence that mentions „Syria“ and „chemical“ :
    Quote : „Her brother Eric Trump said she [Ivanka Trump] was upset by pictures of victims from the chemical attack in Syria and that may have encouraged their father to retaliate.“

    THAT`S IT ! No mention of Haspel and Pompeo in the whole article !
    Ivanka could have seen the pictures of Khan Shaykhun victims in the media.

    It seems Julian Barnes needed all the time to find this trivial sentence that could iron out his faux pas. Gina Haspel could not let it sink in that she has planted fake pictures on Trump.
    But I´m sure she did !

  150. This is one small example of what’s happening with media now. They used to be able to make stuff up or paraphrase government handouts and put it on their front pages and, (largely) without ways of getting disconfirming information, the public unquestioningly accepted it all. We are trusted what we read and the PTB got away with every nefarious activity they undertook. Not so easy now, hence persecution of journalists, de-platforming of ‘alternative’ sites, making sure Wikileaks entries conform, and when called out, pathetic responses as detailed above. Well done, Rob.

  152. I can’t imagine that Gina Haspel is too thrilled with the new version of the story… it makes her ‘spy skills’ look very second rate. Was that really the best she could think of? (If true – which I seriously doubt!)

    Rather looks like Barnes has completely destroyed the credibility of his ‘puff piece’ on Haspel.

    1. I don’t think she’s there for her spy skills. What kind of world do we live in, or what kind of people are we, when a woman with her record on torture is appointed to a senior government position! What’s more, the man who blew the whistle on CIA torture, John Kiriakou, spent a bit less than two years in prison for his troubles.

      1. After spending decades creating, bit by bit, highly effective and professional intelligence agencies, Western political leaders have discovered that those professional intelligence experts usually don’t tell them what they like to hear.

        So they have taken to appointing reliable political hacks to the directorship of such agencies. Then, when they want to start a war or spread lies, they just get their own staff to prepare the reports they would like to see, and get the political hacks to rubber-stamp and sign them. (Tony Blair notoriously did exactly this when he fixed the intelligence around his policy of sucking up to Shrub and joining in the lynching of Iraq).

        It’s a shame that the real intelligence professionals, with all their tools and computers, costing the American people at least $60 billion a year, are thus cut completely out of the circuit and go through the motions of working without their advice ever reaching the top levels of government.

        But, as Napoleon said, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

  153. “This correction was delayed because conducting the research to figure out what I got wrong, how I got it wrong and what was the correct information took time.” …. nah, you and the editors had trouble coming up with an explanation, and in the end produced one that is only plausible to people who can’t think.

    1. And, since most US citizens can’t remember what happened last week, giving the readers time to forget what the whole issue was about.

      Not for nothing did the great Gore Vidal name his country “The United States of Amnesia”.

    2. Good one, Anonymous, has all the ingredients of the real story, how clever of you, if only the name of the duck was Barnes.

Comments are closed.