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

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

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

Yulia Skripal released from hospital whisked away to "secure location"

(April 10)After more than a month in the hospital after being found unconscious and poisoned with her father Sergei on a park bench in Salisbury U.K. on March 4, Yulia Skripal has been released from the hospital.

Everything is kept under wraps

You would think that reporters and the news media would be crying out for permission to interview Yulia. But no one seems to be complaining. Although Yulia says she has been awake for nearly a week, not a single reporter has interviewed her. Russia has asked for a consular visit but it has not been granted. Her cousin Viktoria in Russia requested a visa to see her but was denied.

The only officially allowed statement from Yulia was via the police. The statement said nothing about her experiences except that she was disoriented. The authorities surely must have interviewed her about what happened. Why is nothing of what she said released to the public? No one even asks such questions. Just read all the mainstream "objective accounts".

Christine Blanshard, the medical director of the Salisbury District Hospital said that Sergei would be discharged in due course. Expect the same sort of event when Sergei is discharged, where there are no reporters asking questions of her and no statement about what he said about events. However, no doubt he too has been interviewed by authorities and provided them with his version of events. Yet somehow no one seems to even ask why nothing has been released of what he has said to them.

The phone call of Yulia to cousin Viktoria

I discussed the phone call in a recent Digital Journal article. The woman alleged as Yulia said nothing about what happened. She did say some things that authorities might not like such as that the conditions at present prevented her from asking that the cousin visit if she did get a visa and she suggested that the cousin would not. She also said that her father was recovering and was asleep. This contradicted the official narrative which still had him in grave but stable condition.

The media such as the BBC were very careful to claim the call was unconfirmed. Viktoria, the cousin, claimed she recognized Yulia's voice. Quite soon after the phone call a new update was released on Sergei's condition noting that it had improved and he was recovering. Victoria did not get a visa. Yulia is supposed to not want a consular visit. Very convenient again to ensure that everything that she knows about what happened is not revealed.

Yulia said to be in a secure location

The BBC claims Yulia was taken to a secure location. We are not told who will be able to see or contact her. We are not even told whether she is going to this location voluntarily. This is another obvious device to ensure that she does not release any information that is unauthorized.

Even Blanshard did not say when Yulia was discharged. The BBC said she had left the hospital on Monday night and went to a safe place. Presumably she was released into the hands of authorities who took her to the place. They are not about to let her simply leave on her own to go wherever she wants or talk to whomever she wishes. She could unwrap things. Of course, the official narrative will be that this is all for her safety if anyone asks.

Russian embassy wants proof that Yulia is acting freely

A statement from the Russian Embassy in London said: "We congratulate Yulia Skripal on her recovery. Yet we need urgent proof that what is being done to her is done on her own free will."

The embassy also responded to the report that both Yulia and Sergei could be resettled with new identities. The Embassy said: "Secret resettlement of Mr and Ms Skripal, barred from any contact with their family will be seen as an abduction or at least as their forced isolation."

The offer of new identities is apparently being arranged by US and UK intelligent agencies: "Intelligence officials at MI6 have had discussions with their counterparts in the CIA about resettling the victims of the Salisbury poisoning. “They will be offered new identities,” a senior Whitehall figure said." This is likely to keep any information as to what happened indefinitely under wraps.

According to the BBC, British officials stated that reports that the Skripals would be relocated to the U.S. are inaccurately premature.

The demand for verification and concerns about resettlement make perfect sense. The U.K. authorities could simply allow Yuiia to make a phone call to the Russian Embassy to say she was acting on her own free will. Of course there might be pressure on her to say that but this would make the U.K. look less as if it were forcibly keeping any testimony by her under wraps. However, perhaps there has already been pressure to do this but Yulia refused to do so.

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;

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