Sergei Skripal's relatives fear he may be dead

According to the official narrative Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by the nerve agent novichok March 4 this year in Salisbury. The attack has been blamed on the Russians by the US and UK among others.

Sergei's relatives concerned he may have died

Victoria Skripal, Sergei's niece told the Russian news agency RIA of the relatives' fears that Sergei was dead since none of them had heard from him. The relatives have not heard from the daughter Yulia either since the end of July when she called to wish her grandmother a happy birthday. In that conversation Yulia said that her father could be in touch with them as soon as he got better from his tracheotomy.

When asked why his relatives thought he was dead, Victoria said that Yulia said he would call in three days. She said he loves his mother and would call at any convenient opportunity. Victoria said she found it suspicious as well that there were no pictures of Sergei in the hospital ward.

Victoria also noted that neither relatives nor the press had been allowed to see Sergei. Victoria said: “They didn't let us in. I do not understand what’s so terrible if we see him?” Victoria said.

Both Yulia and then Sergei have been discharged from the hospital. However, there was no interview with Sergei since he came out and it has not been revealed where he is.

Victoria's interview with Moskovky Komsomolets

In another interview with the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, Victoria claimed that if her uncle were not dead, the reason why he is being kept out of the public eye is because the UK authorities have no evidence to confirm their claim that Russia is responsible for the poisonings. “It’s either he is dead, or they have nothing to show. He could have refused, of course, but here I think that, just like in Litvinenko’s case, they would have let us see him if, of course, they had anything to show.”

I expect that although Sergei is alive the authorities do not want reporters or anyone else prying him with questions about what happened to him and his daughter on the day of the poisoning. No one has been allowed to question Yulia either about what happened that day. Without doubt the authorities have interrogated both about what happened. If their narratives supported the official version of events they would have immediately appeared in the press. But there are no press reports of either of the two's version of what happened. Everything is being kept carefully under wraps.

The interview with Yulia

There was a so-called interview with Julia back in May discussed in a Digital Journal article on May 25.The interview involved no questions just Yulia reading off a script. However, she did say that she eventually hoped to return to Russia. It is quite surprising she was allowed to say this and would say it if she believed the official narrative that the Russians were responsible for the attack on her and her father. She said nothing about events just before she and Sergei were found. Yulia was released from hospital on April 9th, so no doubt authorities felt under pressure to release some further information.

Russia also concerned about lack of information concerning the Skripals

Spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry , Maria Zhakarova said: “We find it highly suspicious and outrageous that there’s no information on the state of health and whereabouts of Russian citizens Yulia Skripal and her father Sergei.” Zhakarova noted that Sergei's niece had said that the relatives were concerned that he was dead.

Sergei released from hospital back in May

The release was discussed in a Digital Journal article of May 18. There have been no interviews with Sergei and his location is unknown. Russian authorities have demanded to see both him and Yulia but to no avail. Reporters seem quite accepting of the fact that they have had no interviews with them even though their views of what happened are surely of the utmost significance in order to have a complete picture of what happened. However such information is no doubt a danger to the official account. There has been too much invested in the official view which has been used to justify the UK ousting Russian diplomats. Similar ousting of diplomats was carried out by the US as well. The US also imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the poisoning.

While several Russian outlets reported on Victoria's remarks The Times also did so.

A June 14 article in Digital Journal points out many of the holes in the official version of events and has many links to critiques of the official narrative.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Official story of Skripal poisoning has little credibility

The Skripal poisoning narrative began over 3 months ago. Both Yulia Skripal a Russian citizen and her father Sergei Skripal a former Russian double agent were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury UK and admitted to Salisbury Hospital on March 4.

The whole case has fallen off the media radar screen. What appears now from time to time are various politicians or officials simply asserting or alluding to the official narrative usually as part of larger narratives showing how evil Russia is. Just reporting what authorities say and making no comment is regarded as objective journalism in the sense you are not expressing opinions.

Recently some sources have provided useful timelines of events and also analyses. One of these these sources is the blog "Disobedient Media" that provides a detailed extensive report of events from before the poisoning up to now. Another source with numerous articles on particular aspects can be found at "the saker". Both sources have numerous links to other articles such as those by blog Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray. The appended video shows an interview with a former BBC reporter who discusses a few of the problems with the official narrative and the pitiful mainstream media response.

Earlier Digital Journal articles on the Skripal poisoning

Digital Journal has earlier published several of my articles dealing with earlier events. The first on March 31st argued that the case against Russia was not even plausible. On April 10th an article showed how everything was kept under wraps when Yulia was released from the hospital.

On May 18 there was an article on Sergei Skripal's release from the hospital but there was no news conference and thus no questions as to what the Skripalès version of events was.

A more recent article on May 25th shows how a supposed interview with Yulia also keeps most everything under wraps as well. It was not actually an interview but a video of Yulia reading off a text in Russian but showed also an English translation. The text probably resulted from negotiation. Surprisingly, she was allowed to say that she hoped eventually to return to Russia. This is an amazing statement from someone who according to the official story has just been subject to an attempt to kill her by Russia. However, she has never been allowed to meet the press and her handlers have kept her away from any communication with relatives, and of course from Russian officials. Yulia conveniently says that she does not want consular help at this time.

What have the Skripals had to say about what happened?

Given that both Skripals have been released from hospital authorities must have interrogated them about what happened on the day of their poisoning. If what the Skripals testified supported the official narrative it would have been immediately broadcast far and wide and offered up as confirming the official version of events.

This has not happened. Instead both Skripals are kept away from the press, relatives, and any communication they have is no doubt monitored and even negotiated. To mimic the official story, the only plausible explanation of events is that the Skripal's testimony does not support the official narrative blaming the Russians.

The official narrative is as full of holes as Swiss cheese

The official narrative is often so meandering and inconsistent as to be risible. The various statements about where the Skripals came into contact with the poison is a good example. Independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, sums up the story: “The poison was placed in Yulia Skripal’s suitcase. Actually no, they got that wrong, it was the air vents in their car. Wait, no, that doesn’t work either. Maybe it was administered via weaponized miniature drone! Wait, no, it was the family’s car door handle. Actually, scratch that, it was the front door of the house. Definitely the front door of the house. We’re absolutely sure. Either that or Sergei Skripal’s favorite Russian cereal. They were given 100 grams of Novichok. Wait, no, that’s ridiculous, we retract that. Okay, maybe we have no idea what happened. Oh hey, their pets were completely unaffected by the poison. Let’s incinerate them.”

This is just a brief sampling of objections to the official narrative. Much more in great detail can be found in the two recent sources cited earlier and the many links to relevant articles.

The Skripal case is a prime example of how unsubstantiated accusations can have extremely negative consequences such as the tit-for-tat removal of diplomats from various countries as a result of holding Russia responsible for the poisoning. Yet the mainstream press has voiced little criticism of the official account and helped ensure that criticism is below mainstream media radar. The official narrative is now simply used as given in much political discourse in the mainstream press. What should be fake news has become legitimized.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Sergei Skripal discharged discharged from hospital with no statement or questions

(May 18)Two months after being poisoned by a nerve agent in Salisbury UK, 66-year old Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, was discharged from the Salisbury hospital on Friday.

Sergei was found along with his daughter Julia slumped on a park bench in the city back on March 4. They were taken to Salisbury District Hospital after being exposed to what is said to be a Novichok type nerve agent.

Yulia was released over a month ago

Yulia was released back on April 9th and moved to a secure location. Not a word of further information about her has been released since that time more than a month ago. There is not a peep from the press about the lack of any further information. It is not reported where she was taken except it was a secure location or if Sergei went to the same location as his daughter. I discussed the lack of information at the time of Yulia's release in a Digital Journal (DJ)article at the time. Another article in DJ three weeks later discussed the continuing silence of the media on the issue. This silence continues unabated.

Everything is kept under wraps

The Metropolitan Police said the investigation into the attack continued and they would not "be discussing any protective or security arrangements that are in place". In other words there will be no information about where Sergei is and presumably no access to him as there has been no press access to Yulia.

The BBC article questions nothing about this but reports on what the Director of nursing Lorna Wilkinson had to say about the problems treating the Skripals. At the end she notes that this is now an important stage in his recovery which would now take place away from the hospital but she did not say where.

Russian ambassador to the UK welcomes the news

Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to the UK welcomed the news that Sergei had been discharged. However, he repeated his demand for consular access to both Sergei and his daughter. The ambassador had previously claimed that denial of access to Yulia was a violation of international law. Yakovenko said that if the two do not want Russian assistance that was fine but he wanted to see them physically.

Both Skripals will have been questioned by detectives

The BBC article goes on to analyze the situation. It notes that although detectives are continuing to investigate the attempted murder of the Skripals so far no suspects have been named.

The article notes: "They will have spoken at length to both Sergei and Yulia about what happened and why they may have been targeted." Although the analysis reports that the police are still working to establish the full facts of the case, it fails to remark on the fact that there has been absolutely no information provided as to what the Skripals said about what happened to them.

Mainstream press shows absolutely no curiosity about Skripals' evidence

Although admitting the authorities have questioned the Skripals about what has happened, the BBC analysis shows not the slightest interest in what the Skripals may have said. However, their testimony is surely crucial to finding out the facts of the case that the detectives are still investigating.

Why is it that not only the BBC but other mainstream reports show no surprise at the fact that every effort is being made to ensure that the Skripals are not allowed to be questioned by reporters about what happened? The authorities fail to report on what information the Skripals provided them.

If the information supported the official narrative, it would probably be immediately provided to the public. The only reasonable explanation to what is happening is that the testimony of the Skripals contradicts the official narrative. Too many important people and powers would be put in an embarrassing position should the Skripals' testimony conflict with the official version of events. Every effort must be made to keep their testimony under wraps. The mainstream press is surely complicit in ensuring that the Skripal version of events remains hidden from the public.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Not a word from Yulia Skripal since her hospital release or from her father Sergei

(May  5) It is now about three weeks since Yulia Skripal was released from hospital and taken to a "safe place" after her being poisoned along with her father Sergei on March 4th in Salisbury. There has not been a word about either her or her father.

The two must have been both interviewed long ago by authorities about what happened. One would think that their testimony about the event was crucial. However, everything is being kept under wraps. If the two had implicated Russia there would not be this silence. The mainstream press seems quite uninterested in such questions as to the condition of the father now or where the daughter is and why neither has been interviewed. I discussed the issue in a Digital Journal article a week ago but since there is no information at all about them. There have been new developments that I will discuss in this article.

Czech lab synthesized tiny amounts of Novichok type agent

The Czech government said the agent was used to help train the army against chemical warfare. Russia had listed the Czech Republic as one among several countries that could have been the source of the agent used to poison the Skripals.

The Czech Defense Ministry admitted it had carried out a microsynthesis of several micrograms of potential chemical agents and that included Novichok and sarin gas. The ministry said that this did not represent production as understood under international law and could not have leaked.

The statement by Ahmet Uzumcu of the OPCW

Just to make sure no one might think that the Czech Republic could have been the source of the Novichok that poisoned the Skripals we have a statement by Ahmet Uzumcu, the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who said that the amount of novichok used to poison the Skripals was significantly more than that needed for research purposes which indicated it was likely created for use as a weapon.

In an interview with the New York Times, Uzumcu said that he had been told that about 50-100 grams of the nerve agent was though thought to have been used in the Salisbury attack.

The OPCW repudiates Uzumcu' statement

Some chemical experts were surprised at the Director-General's statement and this apparently included some at the OPCW because the OPCW issued a statement in fact disowning the Uzumcu's statement.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 4 May 2018 — In response to questions from the media, the OPCW Spokesperson stated that the OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. The quantity should probably be characterised in milligrams. However, the analysis of samples collected by the OPCW Technical Assistance Visit team concluded that the chemical substance found was of high purity, persistent and resistant to weather conditions.

So why did Uzumcu make such a statement in the first place? Surely, it was useful as showing that the Czech Republic could not have been the source of the Novichok that poisoned the Skripals. No doubt someone pressured him to make the statement in order to bolster the official narrative.

The UK government also tried to pressure the lab at Porton Down to claim that the novichok came from Russia. A Digital Journal article back in April discussed this showing that Boris Johnson a UK cabinet minister actually claimed a scientist at Porton Down told him this.

When it comes to sustaining the official narrative we have lots of press but when it comes to revealing anything about the condition of the Skripals or what they know about what happened to them we get no information at all.

No new suspects in the case

When asked by a UK MP at a Commons defence committee hearing whether the authorities knew who was responsible for the Skripal poisoning, UK National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill said they did not yet know. However Sedwill expressed no doubt about Russia being responsible and is the biggest threat to the UK. Sedwill told the committee that Russia is an existential threat to the UK: "Russia is the primary strategic threat to the United Kingdom."

Is there a D-notice about reporting info on the Skripals?

A D-notice has undergone several changes but Wikipedia describes it as follows: "A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice)[1] — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security. The system is still in use in the United Kingdom."

There may be no D-notice with respect to reporting on the Skripals but there might as well be. If Skripals supported the official narrative then this would have been reported. However, if the Skripals' would provide testimony that conflicted with the official narrative then this must be kept from the public in the interest of UK security. Not only the UK press seem to voluntarily accept that they should be silent about this but international mainstream media as well. Exceptions are Russian media such as RT and Craig Murray or Moon of Alabama but the latter two are marginal and no doubt to be characterized as dupes of a Russian misinformation campaign. When it comes to suppression of criticism of the official narrative, silence is golden.

Published previously in Digital Journal

Mainstream press is completely silent about both Yulia and Sergei Skripal

(April 28)It is over two weeks since Yulia Skripal was released from hospital and reportedly taken to a safe place. There have been no further reports on her condition or on that of her father who was also said to be recovering but more slowly.

The two were discovered unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury on March 4th, according to the official narrative having been poisoned by a Novichok type nerve agent that was alleged to have been produced by Russia. At first it was thought both would die but as it turned out both survived.

Yulia was released on April 10. A statement by the police was released on her behalf but as I pointed out in a Digital Journal article at the time everything was kept under wraps. Yulia had been conscious and talking for some time and even had an alleged phone call with a relative, Viktoria in Russia. The Russian embassy has tried in vain to gain access to Yulia as she is a Russian citizen. Victoria too wanted a visa to come to the U.K. to see Yulia but was refused a visa.

Authorities must have interviewed both Sergei and Yulia about what happened

If reports are to be believed, Yulia has been fit for interrogation for ages. It is beyond belief that no such questioning has taken place. What were the results? Surely she and her father are key to help understand what happened. After all, they were directly involved. Yet we have not received one bit of information about what she said.

The father too could be well enough to answer questions. There is evidence from the phone call of Viktoria that he was out of his coma and asleep. However, we have not received a single update and reporters are not up to asking questions about his condition apparently. Reporters who are usually demanding interviews have remained silent and are not clamoring for more news to be released. Even when Yulia was released from the hospital, the announcement was made without allowing any reporters to ask questions.

We do not know where Yulia is or the condition of Sergei. Presumably he is still in the hospital but who knows. Perhaps both have been whisked off and given new identities some have suggested could be done.

Instead of dealing with these questions, there are articles dealing with the negative effect on tourism the poisoning has had on the tourism industry in Salisbury as in this DeutscheWelle article and on decontamination as in this BBC article.

The Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray

A recent post by blog Moon of Alabama explains why we may not be receiving any information about what Yulia and Sergei told authorities about the issue. The post notes that a former senior servant Clive Ponting is quoted by former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray as suspecting that the UK government issued a D-notice to desist from reporting on Mr. Skripal's handler. Murray also noted that Alex Thomsen on March 12 also mentioned a D-notice related to Mr. Skripals M16 handler. Whether there is such an order or not with respect to reporting on what the Skripals have said to authorities, the situation is as if there were such an order.

A D-notice is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as a British government instruction preventing particular information from being made public in order to protect the country.

What a complicated web!

The Moon blog post points out: "The D-Notice attempt Thomsen mentioned was too late as some media had already reported the name of the Skripal's MI6 handler. We spelled it out on March 8. One Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent Christopher Steele was also involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and ewent to jail. Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about Donald Trump."

The Moon blog wonders if Steele got Skripal to help make up the dossier about Trump. Did Skripals' old connections try to contact people in Russia to ask about Trump dirt? Of course these are not questions which authorities are likely to answer. While we could easily drift into conspiracy theories at this point, at the very least if what the Moon blog says is true there are certainly those other than the Russians who might have motives to poison Sergei although it is not clear why Yulia should be involved.

Changing official records

On April 26 Dilyana Gatandzhiev tweeted: "Dilyana Gaytandzhiev @dgaytandzhieva - 21:24 UTC - 26 Apr 2018

The #Skripals were allegedly exposed to the drug #Fentanyl, not the #Novichok nerve agent, according to information obtained from the UK Clinical Services Journal https://www.clinicalservicesjournal.com/story/25262/..."

The original version of the report from March 5 said: "Salisbury District Hospital declared a “major incident” on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to an opioid. ...It followed an incident hours earlier in which a man and a woman were exposed to the drug Fentanyl in the city centre. The opioid is 10,000 times stronger than heroin."

On April 27, a day after the above tweet Gaytandzhiev noted that the passage had been redacted. Moon of Alabama blog verified that the text has changed. The text now reads: "Salisbury District Hospital declared a “major incident” on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to what is believed to be an opioid.It followed an incident hours earlier in which a man and a woman were exposed to a substance in the city centre." All reference to Fentanyl as a cause of the illness has been removed.

Strange that a small journal should change its text in this way but it may simply be to be consistent with official findings. However, the local Salisbury Journal gave a similar report on March 5th and that report is still up: "Police declared a major incident after a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s were found unconscious on a bench in the shopping centre on Sunday. Emergency services at the scene suspected the substance may have been a powerful drug called fentanyl, but nothing has yet been confirmed." Of course it was not confirmed.

Another local news site also headlined on March 5: "Major chemical incident declared after 10 people vomited fentanyl and two are critically ill."

There have been plenty of technical studies of whatever the agent was and they show that it was a type of novichok nerve agent. That the early reports indicate it was fentanyl should hardly count for as much as the official analysis although it remains puzzling why the two did not die and why others saw the symptoms as of fentanyl.

As the appended video shows a Swiss lab analysis pointed to an entirely different agent BZ.

Conclusion

Craig Murray along with some others think that there is right now a D-order preventing publication of information about the case. If Russia is indeed the culprit it would seem that a D-order is the last thing necessary. However, a U.K. order, if it exists, does not prevent the remainder of the press outside the U.K. from investigating and reporting. Yet there is silence elsewhere as well.

Previously published in DIgital Journal

Porton Down cannot prove where the Novichok agent was manufactured

A key piece of evidence that the Russians carried out the recent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia was carried out using what is termed a Novichok type nerve agent manufactured in Russia. However the lab claims it cannot prove this.

This article will deal only with several issues raised by the recent statements by Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down. Wikipedia describes Porton Down as follows: "Porton Down is a United Kingdom science park, situated just northeast of the village of Porton near Salisbury, in Wiltshire, England. It is home to two UK Government facilities: a site of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) – known for over 100 years as one of the UK's most secretive and controversial military research facilities..." The lab did the tests to identify the nerve agent said to be used in the poisoning.

Aitkenhead's statements

Aitkenhead told Sky News: "We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent. We have not identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to Government who have then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions you have come to. It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured."

Aitkenhead also claimed that the nerve agent required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only in the capabilities of a state actor".

Craig Murray pointed out in an article some time ago that the lab had never claimed that the nerve agent came from Russia. He claims that there was pressure on the lab to specifically say so which the lab resisted. Murray pointed out the exact phrasing of what the lab said does not claim that the source was Russia: "The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type developed by Russia” is the precise phrase used in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday"

Yet the impression is given in many politician's statements that the lab did establish this. In one interview Boris Johnson UK cabinet minister actually claimed that he was informed by a scientist at Porton Down that the agent definitely came from Russia.

No doubt Aitkenhead's statements were meant to set the record straight as politicians deliberately have tried to confuse the issue and had launched vicious attacks on Craig Murray for pointing out the careful wording of the lab's earlier statement.

Porton Down no doubt has samples of Novichok type agents

While Mr. Aitkenhead would not comment on whether Porton Down keeps novichok he dismissed suggestions that the substance used to poison the Skripals had come from Porton Down and said: "There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility."

It is hard to see how the lab could identify the substance as a Novichok type unless they had some of the same type of formulas to compare it with. Novichok is a type of nerve gas not a specific formula. The claim that only Russia could make the Novichok is just obviously wrong. Many states could produce it.

Iran has produced a Novichok type nerve agent

Craig Murray reports: "I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could be produced from commercially available ingredients. Iran succeeded in synthesising a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database."

Two countries that probably have the capacity to develop Novichok type agents are North Korea and Israel neither of which have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Official narrative now falls to intelligence evidence

The official narrative now admits what Craig Murray had long held that Porton Down never said that that Porton Down never even claimed to have any proof the agent came from Russia. It now falls back on what the Foreign Office calls the wider "intelligence picture".

The Foreign Office said: "As the Prime Minister has set out in a number of statements to the Commons since 12 March, this includes our knowledge that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents - probably for assassination - and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks. Russia's record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views former intelligence officers as targets. It is our assessment that Russia was responsible for this brazen and reckless act and, as the international community agrees, there is no other plausible explanation."

Note that even if all of this were true it does not give a shred of evidence that this particular instance involved the Russians. It just shows that they could have done it.

There is one obvious questions that you wont find asked in any of the mainstream reports. Why would Russia develop a nerve agent that could be traced back to Russia and so immediately lead to Russia being a likely culprit? Are the Russians so stupid as to use a means of assassination that could immediately provide evidence that it was somehow involved? Although obvious it seems that the mainstream press does not seem to think these questions are relevant or important.

Another reason it is not plausible that the Russians would carry out the assassination is that when spies are swapped it is understood that neither side will further punish those swapped. Who will trust Russia with a swap again if Russia wreaks revenge on those swapped? Again, this question does not come up.

We do not know who did the act, but questions remain regarding the official U.K. narrative, some of which I discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Serious questions remain about Russian guilt in the poisoning of the Skripals

British PM Theresa May insists that there are no other plausible explanations of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal than that Russia was guilty of the crime. However, the evidence has never proved this.

	1 of 2
There are quite compelling reasons why the present narrative accepted not only by the UK but by the US and many western countries is not even plausible. Many questions remain about the official narrative such as it is.

Some of the most obvious reasons for thinking that the Russians did not do this are typically not even raised in most mainstream reports. I shall treat two of these.

Why would Russia use a poison that could be traced to them?

The official narrative is that the poison used was a "Novichok" of a type that was developed only in Russia during the Soviet era. If this is correct, why would Russia use this nerve agent when it could obviously be traced back to them and used as a means of establishing their guilt as has been done? The Russians apparently are not only evil they are incredibly stupid. They could have easily used some other general poison or other methods of killing them that could not be traced back to Russia. Instead they chose a method that was sure to lead investigators to suspect it was done by them.

No one even seems to bring up the issue of the daughter being poisoned as well as Sergei. She was just visiting her father apparently. Did she have anything to do with her father's activity? Why was she poisoned too?

Yulia is now conscious and is talking. Yet there is no report of anyone questioning her about what happened or of anything she may have said about the incident. Why is this? Her testimony is surely crucial. One would think that investigators would have talked to her immediately upon her being able to talk.

Rules for swapping prisoners

Sergei was released from a Russian jail in a spy exchange some time ago. A crucial understanding making such swaps possible is that neither side will take any actions against those swapped after the exchange. Why would Russia violate this rule and make it more difficult if not impossible to arrange future swaps? Again the mainstream press usually does not even bring this issue up.

Is it really plausible that Russia would use a chemical agent that could show their probable involvement in the poisoning when they could have used means that would not do so. Is it plausible that the Russians would carry out an assassination that would lead them to be unable to arrange future spy swaps? According to May and many others this must be so.

Unanswered problematic questions

There are numerous questions that demand answers. While most mainstream media have simply left the whole issue of proving Russian guilt and gone on to other issues such as the tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats, zerohedge does just recently list thirty different questions which it claims demand answers. Some of them are actually already answered such as the condition of Sergei and Julia but others remain problematic.

Where did the couple contact the agent?

There have been many different stories about where the two came into contact with the nerve agent. Traces of the agent were said to be found in a restaurant and a pub and the vents of a vehicle but the official story now is that it was from the front door of their home.

According to some claims the Novichok-type agent used is between five and eight times more toxic that VX nerve agent. Any sort of significant dose would have killed or incapacitated them almost immediately. However, the two managed somehow to get from their front door to a park bench presumably some distance away.

What proof is there that the agent was from Russia?

Actually there isn't any except that it is of a type that was believed to have been made in Soviet times in Russia but in what is now Uzbekistan. The Novichok is a type of nerve agent not a specific formula. There is some debate about whether there actually is such a special type.

The scientists at Porton Down apparently did not agree to put out a statement such as the government wanted which would put the place of origin of the substance in Russia because they could not establish this. Instead the more general phrase was agreed to that the substance was " a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia". This claim was made by Craig Murray.

The government issued a rebuttal of this claim saying the following: “We have no idea what Mr Murray is referring to. The Prime Minister told MP’s on Monday that world leading experts at Porton Down had positively identified this chemical agent. It is clear that it is a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. None of that is in any doubt”.

This is not a rebuttal but a further evidence of precisely what is claimed by Murray. The rebuttal repeats the phrase "military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia" it does not state that the agent was manufactured in Russia which is what Murray had claimed. Of course you will not find this discussed in the mainstream press. It is rare that a rebuttal proves what it was meant to rebut.

Russia was given a 36 hour ultimatum to explain the incident but was not provided with the evidence that purportedly shows its guilt. It refused to send Russia a sample of the chemical agent. Given that the UK, the US and other powerful nations have decided that Russia is guilty and acted to punish Russia it is highly unlikely that there can be an impartial investigation. The investigation is already off the radar of the mainstream press.

Further reading

I have discussed just a very small sample of some of the issues surrounding the case for Russia being guilty of the poisoning. It is hardly surprising that there are many different alternative theories as to who is behind the poisoning. Some commentators think that it is a false flag event intended to create even more reaction against Russia. It certainly has done this whoever did it. There are numerous variants of conspiracy theories. While none of them are proved, it is not clear they are any more implausible than the official Russian guilt narrative.

Previously published in Digital Journal