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

Russia accused in 2nd pair of novichok poisonings but with little evidence

Ben Wallace, the U.K. security minister, has claimed that Russia is responsible for the Novichok poisoning of a second couple in Amesbury near Salisbury — where ex-spy Sergei Skripal was poisoned along with his daughter in March of this year.

Russia accused of second poisoning

Wallace has called on Russia to help U.K. authorities keep the people of Britain safe by giving information. The Guardian speaks of the "same military-grade nerve agent" that almost killed Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia.

When asked whether Russia could be responsible Wallace said:“Based on the evidence we had at the time of the Skripal attack, the knowledge they [Russia] had developed Novichok, they had explored assassination programmes in the past, they had motive, form and stated policy, we would still assert to a very high assurance that the Russian state was behind the original attack. The working assumption would be these are victims of the consequences of the previous attack or something else but not that they were directly targeted.

"This [the Skripal incident] was a brazen and reckless attack at the heart of a very peaceful part of the UK. That is part of the anger I feel at the Russian state. They chose to use a very, very toxic, highly dangerous weapon. Novichok in the smallest form can injure thousands of people. The Russian state could put this wrong right. They could tell us what happened, what they did and fill in some of the significant gaps we are trying to pursue. We have said they can come and tell us what happened. I’m waiting for the phone call from the Russian state. The offer is there.”

Russia has denied having anything to do with the Skripal event or the new poisoning; but of course this would be natural and is summarily dismissed. Yet there is no convincing reason given as to why the Russians would have used a poison that would immediately cause them to come under suspicion.

The Alice in Wonderland official narrative about the Skripal event

The official narrative about what happened to the Skripals has all sorts of inconsistencies being as full of holes as Swiss cheese. A recent Digital Journal article list some of the issues as well as having links to numerous critical articles. The issue had gone off the radar of the mainstream media who seem quite uninterested in the fact that neither Yulia or Sergei Skripal who have been out of the hospital for some time have not been available for any real press conference.

George Galloway's op ed in Russia Today is just one of many examples of caustic critiques of the official narrative blaming Russia for the Skripals' poisoning. He starts out with a quote from Alice in Wonderland: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast". He then points out that to believe the official narrative you would have to believe more than six impossible things.

Galloway points out how incredible is the view that the two were poisoned by contact with Novichok on the doorknob of their house. The time period that the two were able to function normally before being found unconscious is radically inconsistent with the view they were poisoned by Novichok a military grade nerve agent. Galloway notes: "Neither Skripal showed any signs of having been affected in the pub, or wherever else they visited en route to Zizi's, or in the restaurant, or even in the only short piece of CCTV footage seen in the public domain after they had left the restaurant but before they reached the park bench on which they slumped five hours after leaving their doorknob." Reporters have never been able to ask Yulia or Sergei what their view is of what happened. If their story confirmed the official narrative we would have heard that ages ago.

Populace reassured that sites in Skripal case decontaminated

Spokesperson for PM Theresa May said: “The advice from chief medical officer was clear that the risk to the public is low. Equally the chief medical officer was clear that in terms of the sites involved in the Skripal incident they have now been decontaminated.” if that is so then it would seem that the Novichok that poisoned them was not likely a part of the original batch that poisoned the Skripals.

How can the authorities claim the risk is low? Was it low for Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley who were poisoned?

Porton Down laboratory established that the nerve agent was Novichok

Neil Basu claimed on Wednesday that expert scientists in chemical warfare at the Porton Down laboratory that is between Amesbury and Salisbury where the Skripals were poisoned had established that the nerve agent that poisoned the two was Novichok. The poisoning happened Saturday but there were no news reports until four days later.

Basu said: “From initial assessment it was thought that the two patients had fallen ill after using drugs from a potentially contaminated batch. However ... due to concerns over the symptoms the man and woman were displaying, samples from both patients were sent to Porton Down laboratory for analysis. Following the detailed analysis of these samples, we can confirm that the man and woman have been exposed to the nerve agent Novichok, which has been identified as the same nerve agent that contaminated both Yulia and Sergei Skripal.”

No one has a good explanation of how four people now have been exposed to a military grade nerve agent and none have died. A recent tweet by Ian Wilkie also notes: "This is four (4) victims now that have been exposed to and suffering from a "military grade nerve agent" and not one (1) EMT or medical carer has suffered the slightest ill effect, with ALL treating the four (4) victims (while wearing no protective gear) for opiate intoxication."

There is virtually no evidence of Russia being involved in this second poisoning

In explaining why Russia is to blame for the second incident Wallace refers mostly to the first incident. Of course he gives no real direct evidence even for that event. He says of blaming Russia for the second event: "The working assumption would be these are victims of the consequences of the previous attack or something else but not that they were directly targeted. " The idea seems to be that somehow the Russians left some of the Novichok from the original attack where others could be poisoned I suppose. At most it could be an accident. The authorities know that the Russians have denied having anything to do with the first incident and yet they are asking them to explain a second incident that is supposed to be a consequence of the first. Obviously they are not seriously asking the Russians for information. Note that the UK has steadfastly rejected the Russian offer to be part of the investigation.

Police lied about what had happened

An article by Moon of Alabama notes that people near Rowley's house in Amesbury said that people in protective suits were seen on Saturday evening. A nearby resident Chloe Edwards a 17-year old student 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." Another neighbour Lee Ann Brady said: 'I was told on the Saturday around half 6 in the evening that there was a gas leak and to close my windows. Nothing else was ever mentioned to us after that. But I haven't seen any British Gas vans anywhere.' Obviously the authorities knew something serious was up but misinformed the public. Even two days after the incident people were being told that it was a case of contaminated drugs but their actions show that they knew this was incorrect.

There was probably a D-notice issued

Wikipedia describes a D-notice 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."

The Moon of Alabama article argues that the issuance of a D-notice would explain the four day gap before there was any reporting on what had happened. The D-notice now prohibits any explanation of the censoring. Apparently along with D-notices outright lying is to be condoned but it is all for a good cause ultimately, casting blame on Russia.

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

The interview with Yulia Skripal that was not an interview

(May 25) Yulia Skripal, the daughter of Sergei Skripal an ex-double agent, says that both were lucky to have survived an assassination attack on March 4th in Salisbury in the United Kingdom. She said that she hopes to eventually return home to Russia.

 

Both were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury and spent weeks in the hospital in critical condition. The attack was said to have been carried out using a Novichok type nerve agent that it was claimed was developed only in Russia. Actually it could have been developed other places as well. A nerve agent of the same type was developed in Czechoslovakia. Russia was blamed for the incident resulting in expulsion of Russian diplomats from several countries and a tit-for-tat response from Russia.

Yulia was released from the hospital over a month ago and her father was released just last week. This is the first time that Yulia has appeared on camera although she did make a statement through the police when she was released from the hospital. The release was discussed in a Digital Journal article at the time.

The interview that was not an interview

Reuters was granted what was called an "exclusive interview" but it was simply a video of Yulia reading from a script in Russian. There was a companion script in English that was shown as subtitles during the speech. She signed the text of both. In an interview the person interviewed is asked questions but there were no questions addressed to Yulia either before or after the video taping. This may not be fake news but it is certainly staged news designed to support the official position on the Skripal case without allowing any questions of Yulia.

Yulia's statement's difference from the official narrative

The one part of the interview that indirectly could be regarded as conflicting with the official narrative is that she hoped to eventually return to Russia. This is a bit strange if she believed the official narrative that it was Russia that tried to poison herself and her father.

She did not in her statement blame Russia for the attack as the official narrative does. Perhaps she was asked to do so but refused. Unlike the official account she does not name the nerve agent Novichok.

She does help preserve the official narrative by saying that at this time she did not want to avail herself of the assistance of the Russian embassy. This helps the authorities to continue to refuse Russian authorities any access to her. They have not allowed access to Sergei either but so far he has made no statement even though he has also been released from the hospital.

The Independent's interpretation and critique

An article in the Independent is quite critical of the "interview" with Yulia. It claims several purposes of the video. First it was to restate the UK authorities' version of what happened at a time when the story began to fray. For example it has never been explained how the deadly nerve agent could have been contacted on their door knob but did not render them unconscious for several hours later. It is supposed to act almost immediately.

Secondly, her appearance in the video struck down some of the more extreme speculation such as that she and her father were dead or that there had been no nerve agent attack. There was also speculation that the two would never be seen again. Note we have yet to see Sergei although it has been announced he was released from the hospital.

Thirdly, the video was meant to show the Russians that the UK authorities had not kidnapped Yulia one of its citizens and was unlawfully refusing consular access. Yulia said she did not want the help of the Russian authorities at least for now. One wonders if saying this was one of the conditions under which she was allowed to make her statement.

The Independent concludes:What we have here, it seems to me, is an attempt by the UK to limit the damage to its own reputation – damage perhaps it never envisaged, because it assumed everyone would “buy” the “wicked Russia” story. And the reason this had to be done, now, or at all, was that the UK’s silence – media blackout? – about the Skripals had become embarrassing; it invited unwelcome questions, and perhaps it also risked the UK’s “triumph” in orchestrating a collective Western expulsion of Russian diplomats.

The Independent notes that there are myriad unanswered questions about the official version. It has already been determined that the nerve agent could have come from other countries and that even the UKs Porton Down could have samples. There are questions too, as to where and when the Skripals were poisoned. Many different stories have come and gone including that it was in their car, in a package of cereal, in a restaurant and last on the door knob of their house. The article lists a host of other questions. Note that after all the ruckus and three months on the authorities do not even have a single suspect let alone made an arrest.

Other critiques

Craig Murray has written many critical articles on the Skripal poisoning and has a blog post on the Reuters interview with Yulia. Among other things he notes that there is now plenty of evidence that other countries have made Novichok type nerve agents and he points out that when it was suggested to a Porton Down authority that the agent may have come from their lab, the response was that security was so tight that it was impossible. There was no outright denial they had samples.

An important additional point that Murray makes is that neither Yulia nor Sergei have been able to make any contact with relatives since the phone call to her cousin Victoria when she was in the hospital. This is a sign they are being held under duress:I remain extremely suspicious that, at the very first chance she got in hospital, Yulia managed to get hold of a telephone (we don’t know how, it was not her own and she has not had access to one since) and phone her cousin Viktoria, yet since then the Skripals have made no attempt to contact their family in Russia. That includes no contact to Sergei’s aged mum, Yulia’s grandmother, who Viktoria cares for. Sergei normally calls his mother – who is 89 – regularly. This lack of contact is a worrying sign that the Skripals may be prevented from free communication to the outside world. Yulia’s controlled and scripted performance makes that more rather than less likely. It is to me particularly concerning that Yulia does not seem to have social media access. The security services have the ability to give her internet risk free through impenetrable VPN. But they appear not to have done that.

The Moon of Alabama blog has an even more critical account of the interview. The blog post points out that the two texts which Yulia signed are different in that the English text has no corrections whereas the Russian text has several. It would seem that the text was written by an English speaker and then translated into Russian.

The blog says of the interview: "In the new Reuters video Yulia Skripal gives a memorized and pressed monologue which declares that she does not want to be contacted by her cousin, grandmother, the Russian government or anyone else. The statement was pre-written in stilted, bureaucratic English language. On camera Yulia Skripal used a Russian version of the English text which she likely had not translated herself."

A Sun article notes that Russian government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said he thought that Yulia was speaking under duress.

Peskov said: "We have not seen her or heard from her. The handwritten letters signed by Yulia in Russian and English confirm this impression. With all respect for Yulia’s privacy and security, this video does not discharge the UK authorities from their obligations under Consular Conventions. The UK is obliged to give us the opportunity to speak to Yulia directly in order to make sure that she is not held against her own will and is not speaking under pressure." I expect there is zero chance of that happening.

The official narrative is unraveled for everyone to see but the authorities hope that people will be too busy with other news items to notice, and it is unlikely that the mainstream press will press the issue. They have been mostly silent while the silence of the Skripals has been noticed only by a handful of marginal commentators. The present video seems to have had the effect of stirring at least some interest among larger papers.

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

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

Statement from Yulia Skripal comes only through police no info on what happened

(April 5) Finally there is a statement from Yulia Skripal but it comes not direct from her but the police on her behalf. Of course no reporters are allowed to speak to her or Russian officials who have asked to speak to her since she is a Russian citizen.

 

What is most obvious is that nothing at all is said about her recall of what happened. It is surely of the utmost importance to find out what her version of events is. Not a word about that. The statement is carefully orchestrated to make sure that nothing is said about that.

Yulia claims her condition is improving

She does report on her condition saying that her strength is growing daily. The UK Foreign Office said according to the BBC that she has not taken up the offer of Russian consular assistance. This is just added in I expect to excuse the UK officials from not allowing the consular visit during which she could disclose embarrassing information.

Notice that no reporters or any friends or relatives have been allowed so far to visit her. Her cousin Viktoria in Russia wants to come to visit her and has sought a visa to do so but it is unlikely that even if she does get to the UK she will be allowed to visit. The issue is discussed in the purported phone call to her by Yulia of which a video is appended.

The police release quotes Yulia as saying that she was grateful for the many messages of goodwill she had received and said: "I woke up over a week ago now and am glad to say my strength is growing daily. I have many people to thank for my recovery and would especially like to mention the people of Salisbury that came to my aid when my father and I were incapacitated, Further than that, I would like to thank the staff at Salisbury District Hospital for their care and professionalism. I am sure you appreciate that the entire episode is somewhat disorientating, and I hope that you'll respect my privacy and that of my family during the period of my convalescence."

It is almost as if the last sentence were dictated. It is exactly what is needed. No one should come asking pertinent questions about what happened. After all, she is disoriented and her privacy must be honored. It is what the police want. As I said, everything must be kept under wraps.

Yulia's alleged phone call with her cousin in Russia

Another recent event relative to the Skripal affair is a video from Russian TV that purports to be the audio of a telephone call from Yulia to her cousin Viktoria in Russia.

The BBC does its required hatchet job on the report: "Earlier on Thursday, Russian TV aired a recording of an alleged phone conversation between Ms Skripal and her cousin. However, doubts have been cast on how authentic the recording is; the presenters of the programme themselves said they had been unable to verify it. "

The BBC is careful not to say that it was Julia speaking: The woman described as Yulia says: "Everything is ok. He [her father] is resting now, having a sleep. Everyone's health is fine, there's nothing that can't be put right. I will be discharged soon. Everything is ok." This does not fit in with what the official story is of her father's health which is that he is in critical but stable condition.

However, the Russian news agency Fax has said that the cousin had told them that she had spoken to Yulia and she had said that all was well. Interfax also said that Viktoria expressed surprise that the phone call came through as just a day before she had been told that she would not be allowed to speak to Julia. Surely this shows that Viktoria was one party in the two party phone call. How come Viktoria has not been asked to verify the authenticity of the video? Or has she?

As in her statement to the police, Yulia says nothing about what happened. If the phone call did take place then it was probably with the consent of UK authorities. The only part that perhaps reflects negatively on the UK is that part where Yulia says that Victoria will not likely get a visa but she does not really blame the UK directly so much as to just say that the present situation makes it not possible.

We will have to wait and see if Viktoria gets a visa to go to the UK and if the does whether she will be able to visit Yulia. So far no one who might ask embarrassing questions has apparently visited her. It is unlikely that anyone will do so even though it is a whole month now since the attack and apparently Yulia is reasonably well recovered. Release of any information is to be strictly controlled. Up to now, Yulia's talk comes through the police who no doubt ensure that what is said does not reveal anything.

Meanwhile the official narrative about where the poisoning occurred, the newest one of several, is that the chemical agent was on the front door of their house. Somehow the agent which is supposed to act almost immediately didnt take effect until hours later on a park bench. Even then neither were killed. Surely the only plausible explanation is that it was done by incompetent stupid Russians who forgot that only they could be the source of the agent and were incapable of delivering it properly to cause death.

Previously  published in Digital Journal;