Okay,
so I’m up to 70 questions so far on this case (here, here and here), and here come another 20. Most of these are focused
on Yulia Skripal, but there are also a number of questions at the end relating
to the main character in the case, who so far seems to have been almost
entirely forgotten. Let’s just call him or her or them “A. Suspect”, and note
that so far he or she or they have been curiously conspicuous by their absence.
1. Both
Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were admitted to Salisbury District
Hospital (SDH) on 4thMarch 2018 and were said to have been in a coma
in the weeks that followed. During this time, what actions were taken by the
Hospital Trust to inform their next of kin of their condition – particularly Mr
Skripal’s 90-year-old mother (and of course Yulia’s grandmother) –, and to keep
them updated throughout their illness?
2. According
to reports on 28th March, both Mr Skripal and his daughter were
in a critical condition, and
it was even suggested that the likelihood of either of them surviving
was so remote that a judgement might be needed to make the
“politically-sensitive decision over whether to maintain life support” for
them. Yet just eight days later, on 5th April, it emerged that
Yulia Skripal had contacted her cousin, Viktoria, by telephone, and that she had repeatedly
stressed that “everything is fine” and “everyone is fine”, including her
father, who she said was “having a sleep”. This suggests that the two of them
had recovered a good while before the phone call. On what dates did the two of
them regain consciousness?
3. The
telephone conversation, which was recorded by Viktoria and played on Russian television,
was the first public information that both Yulia and her father were no longer
in a “critical condition”. Why was this information not made public before her
phone call was aired?
4. On
22nd March, the
High Court in London made a judgement, giving authorisation for specialists
from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to take
blood samples from Mr Skripal and his daughter, since they were apparently not
in a position to agree to this process themselves at that time. When the
samples were taken, was this done in accordance with the High Court judgement
or had the Skripals emerged from their comas by then?
5. According
to Articles 36 and 37 of the 1963 Vienna Convention and Article
35 (1) of the 1965 Consular Convention, as citizens of the Russian
Federation, both Mr Skripal (who retains dual nationality) and his daughter are
entitled to consular access from the Russian Embassy in London. In
the statement released by Scotland Yard on behalf of Yulia Skripal on 11th April,
she stated that she was “aware of my specific contacts at the Russian Embassy
who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can,” but then went
on to say that she did not wish “to avail myself of their services”.
However,
during the period when both she and her father were in a coma, neither was in a
position to either request, or to refuse, consular access. In this case, denial
of consular access when their wishes remained unknown could be seen to
constitute a breach of their legal rights under the European Convention on
Human Rights. Can the Government comment on how the decision was arrived at to
assume that the Skripals would not want consular access, since
this could not have been known whilst they were unconscious?
6. Furthermore,
since the decision to deny them consular access whilst they were incapacitated
represents a possible breach of their human rights, both Mr Skripal and his
daughter were surely in a position where – despite their condition – they were
entitled to legal representation. Can the Government confirm whether legal
representation was granted to them?
7. Yulia
Skripal has now been out of hospital since 10th April and is
said to be residing at a secure location. Can the Government confirm that she
currently has access to legal representation?
8. What
is the name of the law firm that has been representing her interests?
9. In
the statement issued on her behalf by Scotland Yard on 11th April,
Yulia stated that she had “access to my friends and family.” Can the Government
comment on whether she has availed herself of this access and, if so, which
family members she has contacted?
10. The
telephone conversation between Yulia and her cousin, Viktoria, was odd for a
number of reasons. However, the single strangest thing about it was not the
conversation itself, but its duration, which was approximately 1:34 minutes.
Why is this odd? Because it was Yulia, not Viktoria, who initiated the call.
Had it been Viktoria who called, the brevity of the conversation could perhaps
be explained away on account of Yulia not wishing to speak to her cousin.
However, since it was Yulia who made the call, it is clear that she did want to
speak to her. It is therefore somewhat bizarre that having been in a coma for
weeks, having been the victim of poisoning from some sort of toxic chemical,
and indeed finding herself at the centre of a huge international scandal, after
deciding to call her cousin, she then broke it off after little more than a
minute and a half. Is there a credible explanation for this very strange
occurrence?
11. During
the conversation with her cousin, Yulia stated that she was calling on a
“temporary telephone.” Can it be confirmed whose telephone this was?
12. Why
was she not able to use her personal mobile to make the call?
13. Did
she then, and does she now, have access to her own mobile?
14. It
is not unreasonable to suppose that most people, finding themselves in the
situation which Yulia found herself in, would wish to speak at much greater
length to their relative regarding their condition and their circumstances.
However, the fact that it was Yulia who initiated the call, but then chose to
end it after just 94 seconds, is suggestive that she was not at liberty to
speak for any longer. Indeed, it is highly suggestive of one of two
possibilities:
- Either
that she was given the telephone by someone in the hospital who wanted her
to contact her cousin, without the knowledge of the “specially trained
officers available to me” (as she put it in her statement released through
Scotland Yard)
- Or
that she was given the telephone by one of those specially trained
officers, who was in the room with her whilst she made the call.
Whilst
their may be another explanation, can the Government or the Hospital Trust
confirm that when she made the call, she was at liberty to speak to her cousin
for as long as she liked?
15. The statement put out on Yulia Skripal’s behalf by Scotland
Yard on 11th April, was notable, amongst other things, for its rather precise
language and polished turns of phrase. For example:
“I
was treated there with obvious clinical expertise…”
“I
find myself in a totally different life than the ordinary one I left just over
a month ago, and I am seeking to come to terms with my prospects,
whilst also recovering from this attack on me.”
“I
have specially trained officers available to me, who are helping to take care
of me and to explain the investigative processes that are being
undertaken.”
“…I
have been made aware of my specific contacts at
the Russian Embassy…”
“At
the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services,
but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them.”
These
do not automatically look like the sorts of phrases a person who had been
through a huge ordeal would use, especially if they were not using their native
language. The statement said that the words were being released “on her
behalf”, but can it be confirmed whether the statement was:
a)
written by Yulia Skripal, and released on her behalf, or
b)
written for Yulia Skripal and released on her behalf?
16. On
5th April, Yulia clearly wanted to speak to her cousin, Viktoria, as she made
contact with her by telephone. However, on 11th April, the Scotland Yard
statement on her behalf noted the following:
“Until
that time, I want to stress that no one speaks for me, or for my father, but
ourselves. I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she
does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and
assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.”
Taken
at face value, she appears to have had a complete change of heart during the
days between the telephone call and the statement. This has been put down by
many to the fact that Viktoria recorded the conversation, without Yulia’s
knowledge, and that it was subsequently played on Russian television.
The
problem with this explanation, however, is that this is not the reason Yulia
cites. She clearly links not wanting to be contacted by, or visited by,
Viktoria with her “opinions and assertions.” However, this is problematic in
itself, because Viktoria aired a number of opinions and assertions about the
case a long while before the telephone conversation. Was Yulia only made aware
of her cousin’s “opinions and assertions” after she made contact with her, and
was it upon realising this that she had a change of heart regarding wishing to
speak with her?
17. Although
there have been a good many oddities and discrepancies in this case so far, by
far and away the oddest has been the complete lack of a suspect for the actual
poisoning, and the apparent lack of interest in this subject in the media.
Indeed, this may well be the first case in investigative history where the
motive, the weapon and culpability were apparently established less than a week
after the incident, yet over a month-and-a-half later — to my knowledge — there
has been absolutely no word from the Government, the Metropolitan Police, or
the media about who may have carried out the actual poisoning. Is there a
credible explanation for this?
18. Have
the Metropolitan Police identified any suspects in the case, or anyone they
wish to speak to in connection with the incident?
19. An
article in the The
Mail on Sunday on 7th April stated that “security
sources” had revealed the following:
“Russian
agents watched Sergei Skripal for a fortnight and chose to strike on a Sunday
morning so no postmen or delivery men would be exposed accidentally to the
nerve agent.”
How
is it possible that “security sources” apparently possess knowledge of the
movements and actions of the Russian agents for the two weeks before 4th March,
yet are unable to identify any suspects who may have carried out the poisoning?
20. The same
article also made the following claim:
“The
nerve agent used to poison former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter
was specially designed to take about four hours to kill them so their assassins
could flee Britain. Security sources told The Mail on Sunday that
to help the agents avoid capture, the Russians developed a less powerful
‘boutique’ Novichok that could be absorbed through the skin. Novichok is
normally administered as in gas form and kills its victims within minutes.”
(Note:
This report contains an oft repeated but misleading claim that Mr Skripal was a
Russian agent. Yes he is Russian, and yes he was an agent, but he was never a
“Russian agent”, but rather a “British agent” working for the MI6 and not for
the KGB/FSB).
If
the information offered by the security sources is correct, and the attackers
used a slow-working nerve agent in order to give them time to escape the
country, then it ought to be possible to check passenger records for flights
out of the UK in the afternoon of 4th March, especially those
to Russia, and from this to begin to identify a list of possible suspects. Has
this been done and if so, are there any potential suspects that the
Metropolitan Police have identified in connection with the poisoning in
Salisbury?
Postscript:
Just after I posted this piece, I noticed that there has now been an
article in The Telegraph on possible suspects in the case. No names
are mentioned at this stage. What is particularly interesting about the article
is that it states that “Police have also drawn on extensive footage in
Salisbury.” This is itself an interesting statement, as one of the curious
elements to this story has been the sparse CCTV footage of the Skripals on the
day of the poisoning, despite the area around Zizzis, The Market Walk and The
Maltings having
at least five CCTV cameras that could have recorded them. We shall see
how this develops.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.