empire watch, featured, latest, Skripal case, UK
Comments 63

Joining some dots on the Skripal case: Part 1: An Official Story That Doesn’t Hold Water

Rob Slane

c

Updated to correct erratum in citation regarding the claim made by David Collum

I have asked a lot of questions in relation to the Skripal case and many, if not most, are still unanswered. However, I want in this piece to go further than asking questions, and to start to join a few dots together. There is much to say, and rather than doing it in one long piece, which only three people will have the attention span to sit through, I want to do it over a number of articles. Probably four or five. We shall see.

When I say that I am hoping to join some dots together, please note that what I am not attempting to do is state anything conclusively. Rather, I am simply advancing a theory, based on what I have observed so far, and I do so in the full knowledge that there may well be things I have missed, facts which I am as yet unaware of, and other facts which are still to be revealed. These things may well blow any theory I advance apart.

But before I get to that, there is a question that must first be asked: Why is a theory needed in the first place? It’s not as if there isn’t an official one out there. Indeed there is. In which case, why the need for another theory to explain what happened?

The reason is that the official story, put forward by the British Government, is wholly lacking in credibility. It has actually come as a surprise to me just how many people there are out there who don’t buy the official story. Anecdotally, I would say that those looking at the official narrative and wondering how on earth it stacks up includes many who would perhaps not normally question the official line on things.

And so attempting to come up with another theory of what happened has nothing to do with advancing what is usually called a “conspiracy theory”. If the claims of the official story did match the facts, then advancing an entirely different theory could well be seen as a conspiracy theory. But since the claims made by the British Government and in the compliant media do not stack up, this is simply a case of seeking an alternative theory that tries to make more sense of the known facts.

What is it about the Government story that makes it lack credibility? There are a number of things, but let’s just keep this simple. Let’s begin by looking at what it alleges. This can best be summed up by the words of the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, in the statement she made to the House of Commons on 14th March 2018:

Mr Speaker, on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. And there were 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.

Leaving aside Mrs May’s allegations for a moment, any impartial observer would immediately notice something odd about this. Her statement was made on 14th March. This was just 10 days since the Skripals were poisoned. At that time, the investigation had hardly begun, and had not yet established any of the following basic facts:

  • Where the Skripals were poisoned
  • When the Skripals were poisoned
  • How they were poisoned
  • Who it was that poisoned them.

In other words, she reached conclusions before the establishing of facts, and it goes without saying that this is the very opposite of a rational approach. Indeed, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle warned us through his most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes:

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

But what of her actual claims? The statement that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations is entirely irrelevant to establishing guilt in this case. Past behaviour can be useful evidence to support a case, but guilt must always be proved on the basis of the facts and evidence in the case at hand, and on them alone. Anything else is simply dangerous and wrong.

Which means that the Government’s case essentially relies on just two parts:

  1. That Mr Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, along with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were poisoned by the military grade nerve agent, A-234 (one of the so-called “Novichok” nerve agents).
  2. That because this substance was developed in Russia (actually the Soviet Union), it therefore must have originated from that country.

However, both of these apparent facts are demonstrably untrue.

To take the second point first, it has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that a number of other countries have either produced the substance, or know how to produce it. The Czech Government has admitted producing a small quantity of the closely related substance, A-230; Iran has produced Novichok, which it registered with the OPCW; The German Intelligence Agency, BND, was given the formula back in the 1990s, and they shared it with a number of other NATO countries, including the US and UK. The Edgewood Chemical and Biological Defense Command in Maryland, USA, recorded the formula back in 1998.

What is more, as the Moon of Alabama website points out, David Collum, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Cornell University has stated that any credible organic chemist could make Novichok nerve agents.

All of which means that the claim that the poison must have come from Russia is demonstrably untrue.

But if analysis of that second claim shows the British Government’s theory to be somewhat dodgy, scrutiny of the first shows it to be entirely false. Given the toxicity of A-234, being around 5-8 times more toxic than VX (some reports state it as being 10 times more toxic), had the Skripals come into contact with it on the door handle of Mr Skripal’s house, as is alleged, one of two things would have occurred:

a) They would either have died within a few minutes of coming into contact with it or

b) In the remote possibility that they had survived, they would have suffered for the rest of their short lives from irreparable damage to their central nervous system, with a number of chronic health issues, such as cirrhosis, toxic hepatitis, and epilepsy (see here for details of what I understand to be the only known survivor of poisoning by this substance, Andrei Zheleznyakov).

What they would not have done is spent the next four hours swanning around Salisbury, going for a drink and then for a meal in a restaurant. What they would not have done is to exhibit symptoms closer to having been poisoned by a hallucinogenic than a military grade nerve agent. And they most certainly would not have collapsed at exactly the same time as each other, four hours later, after showing no previous signs of illness in the restaurant.

Yet as it is, not only are the Skripals and D.S. Bailey still alive, but none have suffered irreparable damage to their nervous system. In fact, in her conversation with her cousin, Viktoria, on 5th April, Yulia Skripal specifically made mention that “everyone’s health is fine, there are no irreparable things“.

Given that this is so, it is entirely rational to come to the following conclusion:

The claim that Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and D.S. Bailey were poisoned by A-234, which is one of the most deadly nerve agents known to man, and which either kills or leaves its victims with irreparable damage, is demonstrably untrue.

Having dealt with the official story, I want in Part 2 to deal with what I believe to be some of the most interesting clues in this case, each of which is being ignored or swept under the carpet.

Rob Slane dwells in the Country Formerly Known as Great Britain, now known as The Quagmire.Having been intensely hostile to Christianity until his late 20s, he finally gave up the pretence and admitted that it had been right and he had been wrong all along. Since then that initial realisation has been confirmed over and over again as it has become clear what a nasty, nihilistic, intolerant quagmire secularism has led us all into. Thus is he the author of The God Reality: A Critique of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, The Universe & Everything. Thus does he write monthly worldview articles for the American health sharing company, Samaritan Ministries, and is also a regular contributor to The Conservative Woman and the Canadian magazine, Reformed Perspective. So a bit eclectic, you might say. Oh, and he also blogs on a site called TheBlogMire.

63 Comments

  1. Has anyone anytime in this affair pondered the age old question “What will the neighbors say?”?

    Skripal’s neighbors — that is.
    About the goings on around the time of 16;00 and after, about the cat and the guinea pigs, the copper, etc.?

  2. Peter Beswick says

    It wasn’t a Novichok, Putin knows that, Military Grade Nerve Agent weapons kill very quickly.

    But supposing one* of the Skripals placed their hand on the door handle to shut the door.

    (*Only one person required to close the door – the poisoner only assured of getting one, so attack indiscriminate in that sense)

    Even if a re-entry had occurred later, only one of the pair received a massive dose but that’s not the only difference;

    Age, Sex, Height, Weight, Fitness, Health Condition, BMI, Fluid Levels, Enzyme & Electrolyte Levels & Responses,etc etc.

    Yet they both succumb at precisely the same moment (hours after one has received a massive dose) and they both suffer identical very rapid onset of the debilitation. Up to the moment of Affect both well enough to eat, drink and walk.

    Those Ruskies certainly know how to make Chemicals Weapons of Mass Distraction.

    And it wasn’t the Skripals on the bench (see earlier posts).

    So not a Novichok and not the Skripals! What was the fuss about then? Why did all those diplomats actually get deported? Who were the couple on the bench? What were they poisoned with? And why (what really happened to the Skripals)?

    Answers on a postcard to anyone but the UK government, they desperately don’t want to know (or you to know).

    • Jen says

      I think we will be disappointed if we believe that Ellen Barry’s NYT article about some Salisbury residents having doubts about the official account of the Skripal poisoning case portends a change in opinion at the NYT or greater tolerance for dissenting views. The general thrust of the article is that Moscow’s supposed disinformation campaign has apparently found gaps in the British public trust in British institutions including trust in the government and the media, and is exploiting those gaps. The reason it is written is to give some semblance of acknowledging that people in Salisbury have been left in the dark about the case, and in this environment their concerns and trust are being exploited.

      Funny how the article also keeps harping on about British apathy and passive behaviour as well.

    • JudyJ says

      I agree with @Jen’s comments that the main thrust of the article is on, what Ellen Barry reports as, the Kremlin’s exploitation of social media to advance their (ie. the Kremlin’s) alternative theories. Granted the article does mention a number of unexplained or unanswered questions but certainly doesn’t cover the whole range of such questions which, as we know, have been raised by many people not under the mind control of the Kremlin. Rather than following up with any attempt to respond to those questions or undertake any investigative journalism herself, I note that Barry conveniently dismisses the validity of such questions with a simplistic reference to “the disciplined silence of the Western investigators”, thereby giving credibility to the UK Government’s position and putting the absence of evidence down to the deliberate operational tactics of such investigations.
      Having said that, at least the NYT is keeping the issue alive, unlike most Western MSM who appear to have forgotten about it already and assume that the rest of us have as well, playing into the hands of the British Govt.

    • That’s how state sponsored disinformation works.
      The all-important but unspoken premise is cleverly weaved into a superficially luring and appealing story of rhetoric.

      Do you want us to ask “Et tu, fingers?”.
      No you don’t.
      So try not to be tickled and ass-kissed too soon.
      Stay skeptical.

  3. padre says

    I think, if it is official, it doesn’t have to hold watter, because the fact that it is official makes it true!Can you imagine what mess it would make, if we start questioning official statements?Next thing you know, they will question government, legal authorities, judicial system, police and there would be no end of it!

    • You enlightened and straightened me out.
      I will better my life.
      Law and order, must have.
      I am going to learn to love and laud James Comey book.
      Will dust off my flag and learn all the right words in my anthem.
      In fact, why doesn’t everybody already?
      Must be something wrong with them, I don’t trust them.
      Commies? Pinko’s. Kill the bastards.

  4. The problem with the advancement of such theories is that they can be very easily discredited by the next tidbit which the government deigns to release in their undignified and inept scramble for credibility.

    For example, if they make the claim that they had an intelligence tip-off regarding an assassination attempt by the Russian government, they can say they had medics on hand from nearby Porton Down with the required antidotes poised and ready for life-saving service.

    These theories are reactive by nature, which means we’re simply peering through the latest holes in the narrative left by the inept criminals behind such false flags. They plug the gaps and we merely look for new ones.

    In the very act of doing so we’re giving these contemptible bastards more credence than they could ever deserve.

    4
    1
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      They only get away with it because the popular mass is dull, uninterested and relentlessly brainwashed, and the fakestream media is utterly complicit and the propaganda arm of the ruling kakistocracy. It is totalitarianism, barely hidden behind a diaphanous veil of sham ‘democracy’.

      15
      1
    • Don’t you understand that that would be adding yet another new layer to a house of cards?

      Besides, such information will probably never amount to real, tangible evidence — always be a call on credulity; trust us, we mean well, we’re the government after all. The docile, D-noticed MSM would add the finishing (for the time being) touch.

      Plus in cases of which you give an example, a plausible rationale should be provided or be built in for not providing such crucial information earlier.

      • “Plus in cases of which you give an example, a plausible rationale should be provided or be built in for not providing such crucial information earlier.”

        Seriously? Who’s demanding a plausible rationale? ‘National security’ can always be invoked, as it has been so many times. It’s the establishment’s deus ex machina in all tight spots, as is the ‘we won’t compromise our intelligence sources’ gambit. With an entirely complicit media and a population consisting mostly of credulous, deferential imbeciles, the bar for ‘plausible rationale’ has been set too low for an ant to limbo dance under.

  5. Peter Beswick says

    First of all it’s important to note the female on the bench was not Yulia. Then work backwards and forwards from there.

    Description from chef and diners in Zizzis on that fateful day (4th March); the female of the “Russian Couple” had a Black Coat and Reddish Brown Hair (the male in the restaurant was doing his best to draw attention himself and partner).

    Yulia was caught on CCTV in a Moscow airport the day before (the 3rd March) she is seen with Reddish Brown Hair.

    Two independent witnesses (the only eyewitnesses of the couple on the bench to make public a description of the hair colour of the female on the bench were;

    Olly Field who referred to her as a “blond bird”, the other;

    Freya Church who stated the couple were “100% Definitely” the couple she had seen in the released Snap Fitness Gym CCTV in Market Walk. That couple showed a white haired / blond female who had a red bag.

    A red bag was subsequently photographed at the scene.

    Another clip was released that showed a group of three people from the same Market Walk from a different camera. One male, two female. One female blond with small dog walking along side male, the other female walking in front had darker hair but short white jacket.

    Male in both videos wearing black coat. Police told the manager of Snap Fitness (Cain Prince) that Skripal had been wearing a green coat.

    The driver of the car caught on CCTV outside The Devizes Inn at 1:32pm was wearing a light brown coat / jacket.

    The only released public CCTV do not show anyone that matched Yulia’s description. The police have in their possession Council High Definition CCTV (that shows facial features and car number plates clearly) the police have within their 4000 hour collection of CCTV footage an hour or so of CCTV from the camera set above Market Walk pointing directly at the bench when the drama was being played out. The Council Leader has confirmed the Maltings CCTV was up and running that day.

    The Council CCTV has not been released to the public.

    The Female on the bench was not Yulia, the released private CCTV proves that, the Council CCTV will prove lots of other things we are not allowed to see.

    (Anyone requiring sources please ask)

    13
  6. I know I sound like a broken record but I think it is really important bear in mind that there is no hard evidence of any poisoning by anything at all other than the seeming tracheotomy scar borne by Yulia which could easily be moulage and whose very purportedness is suspect from the start. Surely, if the story does not add up why should we believe anything at all about it except those things that we can verify tangibly which seem to be very few.

    20
    • That’s true, although the Skripals were evidently treated for something in Salisbury Hospital – and the consultant wrote to the Times to say that it wasn’t Novichok poisoning. That suggests (to me anyway) that it was some other form of poisoning.

      If it wasn’t for that letter to the Times I would probably have begun to wonder if the whole hospital stay wasn’t a fabrication, with the administrators playing to their scripts, etc. Actually I suppose even the consultant’s letter could be seen as part of such a deception. Still, Occam’s Razor surely suggests there was poisoning, albeit not with Novichok.

    • Well I think the scar is a sign that something quite serious happened to Yulia Skripal. It could “easily be moulage”? … well Ms Skripal will have to keep wearing the make up for a very long time in that case won’t she?

      • JudyJ says

        Like every other observer, I don’t know whether the tracheostomy was genuine or not. But I am prepared to be open minded and say that your belief that it is definitely genuine, because of the commitment that would be necessary to prolong the evidence of any fake scarring, is misguided on two counts:
        1. If it were a fake scar Yulia could simply wear a neckline or scarf that would hide the area if she didn’t wish to apply ‘moulage’ – no one’s going to insist that she reveal it.
        2. Scar tissue, particularly in the case of a simple, small tracheostomy incision, starts to fade fairly quickly to the point that she could say that she was wearing makeup to hide the remnants of any scarring – again, who is going to insist that she prove that she isn’t wearing make up?

        • Jen says

          Also if the choice of dress worn in the video had been Julia Skripal’s to make, she might likely have chosen one that covered up the incision. As the whole video presentation was staged, and Julia looked quite vibrant with neatly cut hair, one suspects the dress she wore must have been chosen carefully to show off the scar. Question is whether she chose it or someone else did and what message was intended to be conveyed to the public.

      • George Porter says

        Not if she is never seen in public again. There have been no sightings in the last 3 weeks or so.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Once you are sedated, putting a trache tube in, or merely making the required incision, is easy enough, to give the story credibility.

  7. Hugh O'Neill says

    Thanks to the author for keeping the [Skripal] False Flag alive. As others have mentioned, context is everything: Douma (and Litvinenko – keep repeating, ad nauseam). The trouble with spy agencies is their arrant stupidity, their complete amorality, their arrogance, their they know better than government or any democratic institution. They are the walking brain dead, all mumbling some unthinking Group-Think mantra like: “Putin is Evil. Russia is evil. Reds are bad. We are good”. Thus it was patently a botch job by MI6/CIA/Mossad and Boris & May are complicit stooges.
    There is resonance with the 1967 attack on USS Liberty, designed to allow US to side with Israel against Egypt (and USSR) on the False Flag sinking of US Spy Ship USSLiberty (you couldn’t make this stuff up). For all the napalm, aerial strafing, rockets, machine guns and torpedoes, the bloody ship refused to sink! Whoops! Plan B. Get those nuclear armed bombers back from nuking Cairo. Incredibly, the BBC exposed the lies in 2002 Doco “Dead in the Water” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2lbSepnEJI. As if Vietnam wasn’t enough! Blessed are the Peacemakers.

    15
  8. I forgot to add to my comment, which no doubt Rob Slane will soon cover, is that a link between Skripal and the ex English spy commissioned for $120,000 by Hilary Clinton to dish the dirt on Trump, is very possibly the raison d’etre for this whole affair, which if so has a long way to go yet, and may hopefully end the careers of May and Johnson.

    18
    • Yarkob says

      He covers that in part 4, i think..he’s up to part 5 on his site theblogmire.com

  9. My belief is that it was the CIA, scared of Trump’s stated intention to make peace with Russia, either itself or using an agent ( possibly Mossad) to bring the naïve Mrs May to suspect Russia. On the back of still unproven accusations of the previously alleged Russian plutonium poisoning incident, and in Mrs May’s desperation to bury bad Brexit news and to try to curry favour as a world leader, she was suitably fooled, and took the bait, claiming she was supported worldwide. In fact, of the EU countries, Germany expelled only four minor Russian posts and Italy and Spain only two, while others saw it as the nonsense it was. Thanks to May and the ambivalent Boris the UK now has a very long way to go to recover any friendship with Russia having compared Putin to Hitler and proposing a boycott of the World Cup.
    One has to assume that only by ridding itself of both will any relationship be capable of recovery.

    I would add that the CIA and GCHQ have very deep relationships (Iraq and WMD’s) and that as much as the CIA has and is using every device to unseat Trump that they are just as likely to attempt to treat the foolish Mrs May and the baseless Boris for any purpose that suits them. That the new head of GCHQ has recently come out with an outpouring of vindictiveness against Russia vindicates my view. It is not that I see Russia as blameless but no more so than the UK or USA in seeking to protect their interests. Nor do I see much sense in the UK/US argument that Putin is an evil genius if he is so stupid to have so obviously organised the Skripal affair that suspicion immediately falls on him, any more than the US faked photos of Syrian gas poisoning.

    There is of course one last possibility that it was MI6 acting in collusion with the CIA who poisoned the Skripals seeing they were so conveniently near Porton Down and then botched the whole affair. Who might have authorised this is a moot point.

    9
    1
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      With Thanatopia just recommending that its citizens not visit Russia for the FIFA World Cup, because of the danger of terrorist attacks, you can see why they let the Cup go ahead in the first place.

  10. Interesting post, thanks Rob Slane. I look forward to the next parts.

    For what it’s worth my take so far is that the government and MI5 were caught on the hop by the Salisbury event, and this helps explain their lame and inconsistent explanations as to the “who, how and what” behind the poisonings.

    I suspect that Israeli or U.S. agents were responsible for the strike against the Skripals which was designed, via the choice of a poison that mimicked Novichok in its early effects, to immediately suggest Russia might be responsible. In addition, the rush to cast blame on Russia so soon might be explained by MI5 having a suspicion that Israel or the U.S. were actually responsible; if true this would produce the need to prevent further investigation. It would be deeply embarrassing to HMG if there was any hint that our nominal allies could conduct such false flag terror in the U.K. without our knowledge.

    Clearly we should repay the potential embarrassment by conducting a similar farce in either Tel Aviv or Washington.

    19
    • The poison did not mimic novichok in it’s early effects at all.

      It mimicked opioid poisoning which is why it was first reported as possible poisoning by Fentanyl.

      • According to Sky News, on 7 March ( 3 days after the attack) Police revealed Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent and they said they knew more about the type of substance used in the attack. (https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-spy-poisoning-unfolded-in-salisbury-11288348)

        On 12 March May told the HoC that the substance was identified as Novichok by Porton Down..

        There was early speculation in the media that the poison might have been Fentanyl but there was no official identification (or suspicion) of this as the substance involved, either by the government or the police.

  11. Now as the sun sets on little England, and pretty much the rest of the world [save the Falkland sheep herders] ignores what it says, the only way for its establishment shadow landers have of supplement their pensions is outing their defunct colonial prejudices. To any of those who happen to be dumb enough to believe them and pay for their services…

    Who says the entrepreneurial spirit is dead and cannot break free as the Brexiteers cast off for horizons new? Selling secrets is what the British do best, well selling out more precisely, to the highest bidder. And so the case of the Skripals plays a pivotal role not so much as in how, but why such a story came about?

    Such phantasmagoria only plays out in the minds of people such as Dr Strange but Dearlove, Christopher Steele Eye Dan and James [Dad’s Army] LeMesurier. It seems that they would wish people to think, that against all the evidence, Russia is somehow planning the downfall of western civilisation as we know it. That with such creations as the Skripal affair, Litvinenko’s murder in an English tearoom and Oscar winning White Helmets mockumentary, vehicles through which they would want everyone to think they are making life safer when in fact they are just making money.

    And as you would expect the business model is catching on! Only the other week Arkady Babchenko mesmerised the WMSM succeeding where Harry Houdini failed, by returning from the dead in Ukraine. A country so awash with democracy that the erstwhile purveyors of our news immediately dropped the story as such an audacious stunt clearly was an indicator that fake news not only works in mysterious ways, but really does work miracles…!!!

    26
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      ‘Strange but Dearlove’ is very good. To paraphrase the dead compradore, Liu Xiao-bo, perhaps England needs 300 years of colonial rule so that they can learn how to be civilized. No doubt Gandhiji would think it ‘…a good idea’.

  12. Baron says

    Another explanation offers itself, you seem to be totally ignoring it.

    If the Skripals got contaminated touching the door handle, but others who have entered the house after the investigation began handling the same part of the door didn’t, it must be a miracle.

    That the Skripals, hands contaminated, touched many an object, certainly in the eatery, the same objects must have been subsequently handled by others who didn’t suffer in the least must be another miracle.

    Another miraculous escape happened when the passers-by helped the Skripals on the park bench immediately after they had collapsed, and yet another miracle occurred in the hospital where the doctors and nurses who treated the poisoned pair in the first hours (or even days) of their arrival there because in either case nobody came to any harm.

    As the fluffy animal says ‘simples’, it’s all done to miracles.

    (There’s only one piece of credible evidence in the whole saga – the consultant’s letter published in the Times, now totally ignored, forgotten, swept under the rug, the rest of what we’re told is lies, irrational trash, noise).

    25
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Don’t forget that Salisbury is near Stonehenge and Avebury, so perhaps it was Druidic magick at work.

      • rilme says

        By an odd coincidence, Salisbury is VERY close to Porton Down, the most likely place in the UK for one to find nerve agents.

        12
        • milosevich says

          — which would be a highly significant fact, where there any credible evidence that such substances were in any way involved. However…

    • Jen says

      You forgot one other strange miracle, which is that the fluffy animals Sergei Skripal kept in a cage in a room near the front door somehow escaped sniffing the fumes from the toxin smeared on the front door handle, only to succumb to starvation and thirst, and then be disposed of at the incinerator in Porton Down without being autopsied. How to explain is not so “simples”.

      8
      1
  13. The Novichok allegedly used is known, clinical testing of that would give conclusive evidence as to whether Skripals were ever subjected to it. Where did OPCW get this substance? They did not get it from Sergei’s fingernails, Porton down gave it to them!
    Nobody is motivated to properly investigate this case, the Russians have more important things to do, the UK regime is never going to do it even with a change of PM. Nobody has died or even injured, so what’s the big deal, only the legitimacy of democracy!
    With the corrupt media you can get away with anything, there are many shocking moments in this charade, Christine Blanshard from the hospital, squirming on Newsnight when trying to explain the Skripals immunity to Novichok.

    I have no doubt it was a UK Gov’t/regime/deepstate operation, my best guess is that they sat on bench then inhaled fast acting substance that left them unconscious,this may have been done by Sergei or a Gov’t agent, they may have received medical treatment straight away from a co conspirator, either way it was never a lethal dose but something that had been chosen to mimic some of the symptoms of a nerve agent, The rest was just pure PR.

    24
    • I think this is a very interesting – and new to me – idea that Sergei may have “colluded” in his and Yulia’s intoxication, for what later turned out to be a very important operation by the UK state and agents. Leaving this to some chance events, including ‘rescues’ by passers by, would be tricky. We don’t actually have any photos or verifiable evidence from proven “passers by” of what happened on the park bench… do we?

      10
      • Yarkob says

        A large part of the official conspiracy theory posits, endlessly in the media, that SS was a “double-agent”. This is untrue. SS was still an active asset for SIS right up to his “poisoning”. That he colluded, in some way or other, is highly likely. At least until his unfortunate demise and subsequent resurrection. Who knows what he’s thinking about it all, now. Pablo Miller does, and I expect “Christopher Steele” does, too

      • JudyJ says

        And there was the mystery of ‘the moving bench’. As reported by The Saker (article: A Curious Incident Part V) and supported by photographs, the area cordoned off immediately following the removal of the Skripals did not include the park bench where we were subsequently led to believe the Skripals had been sitting. It wasn’t until a few hours later that the cordon was moved to encompass the focal bench.

    • Jen says

      Dayjuska, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would certainly agree with you that a substance that mimics some of the symptoms of a nerve agent was found in the two-week-old blood samples, taken from the Skripals, by one of the four OPCW-certified laboratories that received the samples.

      https://theduran.com/lavrov-bombshell/

  14. What happens to the Skripals now is deeply worrying. Their photos have been plastered round the world so surely it would be difficult to give them a new identity. This means they’ll have to be detained by the British government indefinitely or until the British government has removed Putin or maybe the British government will do away with them. saying they’ve been given a new identity. For sure they won’t be allowed to contact family members in case they say what really happened.

    20
  15. ‘Anecdotally, I would say that those looking at the official narrative and wondering how on earth it stacks up includes many who would perhaps not normally question the official line on things’
    Absolutely. You should have read the Daily Mail readers’ comments on the matter – the majority were most definitely not falling for the government line.

    19
  16. Brian. Damage says

    The question is “If Russia win the World Cup, will Gavin Williamson order an airstrike ?”

    17
    1
  17. Having myself had a say on the Skripal affair on these pages, and being of the similar mind to the author on its implausibility, I’d just like to add my little push to his case before parts 2, 3, 4 etc…
    This is simply to observe that we are not talking about a conspiracy theory here, but about a conspiracy. More than in any previous case one can think of, the scale of planning of the Skripal “nerve-gas attack”, and its closely linked Douma “chemical weapon attack” of April 6th, show that this was a conspiracy of the first order, involving hundreds of actors and agencies.
    Consequently, looking for some “alternative explanation” for what allegedly happened will be fruitless; one only has to show – as Rob Slane and others have already done – that the Skripals could not have been poisoned by this alleged “Novichok”, to establish the guilt of those claiming that they were, and taking severe and lasting actions against Russia on that basis.
    I see no other possible conclusion than that the UK government and its intelligence agencies, along with their close allies who sought to benefit strategically from the actions against Russia – being Israel, France and the US primarily – are guilty of a criminal conspiracy. This includes culpability for all the lethal consequences of these countries’ ongoing support for terrorist groups in Syria, and actions in Ukraine and elsewhere targeting Russian interests and forces.

    (and as someone who formerly dwelt in the country that breaks the rules, it greives me to realise how I was duped into believing it was “great”..)

    37
    1
    • John Marks says

      Interesting post.
      “Conspiracy theorist” has become the new “Red” under England’s Neo-McCarthyism.
      Except McCarthyism II isn’t against just Communism: it’s against anyone who questions whatever the government says.

      20
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        The ‘friendly fascism’ of Western ‘liberal, Free Market, democracy’ is rapidly turning very unfriendly.

    • I don’ think an organised conspiracy is likely. You give these agencies a lot of credit – if they were that clever and well organised then would they have made such a hash of it? I very much doubt it.

      • JudyJ says

        Maybe it was a double bluff so that we wouldn’t think it was an organised conspiracy! Perhaps they are more clever than we thought! On second thoughts… But for the time being it does appear that in spite of making a hash of it – if indeed it was an organised conspiracy – they have arguably got away with it. Who in authority and in a position to challenge the official narrative by pursuing demands for evidence is actually doing so? In the case of Douma, who is demanding the OPCW verdict which would appear to be long overdue? (Not that I doubt that the OPCW will do their best to lie, or at the very least sit on the fence, in reporting on their ‘findings’) When was the last time that the MSM mentioned or scrutinised either the Skripal investigation per se or the events and subsequent evidence from Douma? But, as we all know will happen without proven and publicised evidence to the contrary, in months/years to come these cases will be added to the ever growing list of unsubstantiated incidents for which Russia are the cited ‘baddies’ (along with President Assad in the case of Douma). So in that sense the PTB will have achieved what they set out to achieve with frightening and shameful ease.

    • David Richards says

      Rules – Britannia – Britannia Waives the Rules

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole