While the world’s attention has been largely focused
on Syria for the past couple of weeks, we must not forget the Skripal case. The
reason for this is that the two events appear to be inextricably linked, either
because they show that the Russian and Syrian Governments are willing and able
to use chemical weapons for their own ends, or because they show that the
Governments of the United States, United Kingdom and France in particular are
willing to use false accusations for their own ends.
Russia and Syria have been in the dock and apparently
found guilty, but as ever the burden of proof lies with those making the
accusations to show the certain evidence they have to back up their claims.
However, the only thing that can be said with absolute certainty, regardless of
which of these versions is correct, is that those who have made the accusations
have not shown anything like the evidence needed to substantiate their claims.
Indeed, the biggest connection between the two events
is not the “Who Dunnit” aspect, but rather the fact that guilt has been
assigned and reprisals taken prior to the results of the investigations, and
therefore before facts could be established with any certainty. Legally,
morally and logically this is obvious nonsense, and it is a testament to the
decline of educational standards in the West, and the triumph of emotional
arguments over ones which appeal to facts and logic, that there are many who
appear simply unable to grasp these very basic concepts.
Regarding the Skripal case, there are a mountain of
unanswered questions and a multitude of inconsistencies. Yet it is not even
this which makes the case so odd. Rather, it is the fact that whenever a
question is answered – for example, the medical condition of the Skripals – it
merely seems to throw up even more questions, inconsistencies and oddities.
So it looks like we shall just have to keep plugging
away, asking questions in order to ensure that:
a) This case does not disappear down the Memory Hole and
b) The great and the good are reminded that the
narrative they have presented so far is only consistent in so much as it is
utterly inconsistent – consistently inconsistent, you might say.
I have already asked 50 questions around this case so
far (here and here), and what I want to do is ask 40 or so more which, at
the time of writing, urgently need answering. However, rather than bore you
with them all at once, I will set out 20 of them in this piece and then – God
willing – another 20 or so in the next day or so.
As before, if there are any journalists out there who
possess inquisitive minds, and who have a desire for truth, please do feel free
to start posing some of these questions to the appropriate persons or
authorities.
1. It is known
that Sergei Skripal worked for many years for MI6, having been recruited in
1995 by one Pablo Miller. Curiously, Mr Miller also lives in Salisbury
and, according to some reports, the two of them met regularly in Cote Brasserie, which is
in the centre of the City. Since Mr Skripal and his MI6 “handler” were in
regular contact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mr Skripal may have
still been working for MI6. Can this be categorically refuted by the UK
Government?
2. If the answer
to the first question is yes, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Mr
Skripal may have had connections with the Porton Down facility, firstly since
it has long-standing
connections with MI6 and secondly because of its location, less than
10 miles from his Salisbury home. Can Porton Down confirm whether Mr Skripal
ever had any connections to the facility, either directly or indirectly?
3. It
has been reported that there are plans to demolish Mr Skripal’s house. If
this is the case, it would seem to be a rather extreme action. Why is it not
possible to decontaminate the house, rather than destroy it?
4. The
advice given by Public Health England (PHE) to anyone who may have
come into contact with the substance which poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal
was as follows:
“Wash the clothing that you were wearing in an
ordinary washing machine using your regular detergent at the temperature
recommended for the clothing. Wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and
other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in
the bin (ordinary domestic waste disposal)… Other items such as jewellery and
spectacles which cannot go in the washing machine or be cleaned with cleansing
or baby wipes, should be hand washed with warm water and detergent and then
rinsed with clean cold water. Please thoroughly wash your hands with soap and
water after cleaning any items.”
Assuming that the advice given by PHE was referring to
the same substance that was apparently found on the door handle of Mr Skripal’s
house, why were people who believed they may have got the chemical on their
clothes or other items not advised to demolish their homes?
5. Alternatively,
why is warm water, detergent and baby wipes deemed insufficient for
decontaminating Mr Skripal’s house?
6. These two very
different courses of action — the demolition of the house, and the instruction
to wash with warm water and soap — would tend to suggest that the substances
are in fact different and of an entirely different nature to one another. Is
this the case?
7. If so, what
accounts for the difference?
8. Is it possible
that there were other chemicals in Mr Skripal’s house, which were more toxic
than those that PHE advised could be treated with warm water, soap and baby
wipes?
9. The Russian
Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has claimed that one of the laboratories which
analysed environmental and blood samples on behalf of the OPCW – the Spiez
laboratory in Switzerland – has
stated that it found:
“…traces of the toxic chemical BZ [3-Quinuclidinyl
Benzilate] and its precursor which are second category chemical weapons.”
The Spiez
laboratory has refused to confirm or deny his statement, instead issuing “a
non-denial, denial”:
“…the only institution that could confirm what Mr.
Lavrov was saying is the OPCW. We cannot confirm or deny anything.”
Since the UK Government has seen the analysis of the
original samples, and has seen a copy of the OPCW’s classified report, can a
spokesperson – perhaps the Foreign Secretary – go on record to categorically
state that Mr Lavrov’s claim is false?
10. Did
the analysis at Porton Down identify any traces of BZ in either the blood
samples or environmental samples?
11. If
Mr Lavrov’s claim about the Swiss laboratory is correct, would this explain the
somewhat ambiguous language used by Porton Down in the evidence
they submitted to the High Court, in which they stated that:
“Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal
were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or
related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a
Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent” [my
emphasis added]?
12. Mr
Lavrov also claimed that the Spiez laboratory had been surprised to
find “the presence of type A-234 [“Novichok] nerve agent in its
virgin state…” [my emphasis]. Their surprise comes from the high
volatility of the substance in question, and the relatively long period between
the poisoning and the sample-taking. This also appears to accord with the OPCW’s
official summary of their findings, which stated that the laboratories that
had tested the samples had found that:
“…the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is
concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities.”
Since A-234 is said to be of high volatility,
degrading quickly, can Porton Down offer any explanation as to how the samples
collected by the OPCW, weeks after the poisoning, could have contained A-234 of
“high purity”?
13. Furthermore,
one of the scientists who worked on the development of the A-234 substance in
the Soviet Union, Leonid Rink, has
stated the following:
“OPCW data saying that a toxic chemical was used
proves that it was not Novichok… Novichok is a complex nerve-paralysing substance
consisting of a mixture of many different components and additives that
decompose in different ways. If a pure substance was found, it could not be
Novichok.”
Can the UK Government, or an expert from Porton Down,
go on record to state that Mr Rink’s assertions are incorrect?
14. Mr
Rink also stated that if “pure Novichok” was indeed present in the substance
found on the handle of Mr Skripal’s front door, both Sergei and Yulia Skripal
would have died on the spot had they come into contact with it. Can the UK
Government or experts at Porton Down comment on how Sergei and Yulia Skripal,
along with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, could have come into contact with
A-234 of “high purity”, and still be alive and well?
15. Can
the UK Government or experts at Porton Down comment on how Sergei and Yulia
Skripal could have come into contact with A-234 of “high purity” at Mr
Skripal’s house, and apparently suffer no ill effects for the next 3-4 hours,
including driving into the City Centre, going for a drink, and eating a meal?
16. A-234
is reputed to be unstable and vulnerable to water. Indeed, one of the chemists
who allegedly worked on its development, Vil Mirzayanov, claimed that, “only an idiot would have
used Novichok nerve agent in humid conditions.” Since it was foggy in
Salisbury on 4th March, and rained that evening, can a
spokesperson for the UK Government tell us why they think the Russian state
chose to use such an ineffective method of assassination?
17. The
theory that the substance had been placed on the handle of Mr Skripal’s front
door first surfaced around 22nd March, more than two weeks after the poisoning
and after a number of other theories had been mooted and debunked. During that
time, there were not only periods of heavy rain but also heavy snowfall on the
weekend of 17th-18th March. Can a spokesperson for the UK Government, or an
expert at Porton Down comment on how a substance that disintegrates in water
was not only found on the door handle weeks later, but was also apparently in a
“pure form”?
18. The
symptoms of “Novichok” agents are said to be as
follows:
“Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at
neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all skeletal
muscles. This then leads to respiratory and cardiac arrest (as the victim’s
heart and diaphragm muscles no longer function normally) and finally death from
heart failure or suffocation as copious fluid secretions fill the victim’s
lungs.”
The symptoms for poisoning by 3-Quinuclidinyl
Benzilate (BZ) are as follows:
“BZ toxicity, which might occur by inhalation,
ingestion, or skin absorption, is an anticholinergic syndrome consisting of a
combination of signs and symptoms that might include hallucinations; agitation;
mydriasis (dilated pupils); blurred vision; dry, flushed skin; urinary
retention; ileus; tachycardia; hypertension; and elevated temperature
(>101deg F).”
One of the witnesses in the Maltings on 4th March,
Freya Church, described
the condition of Mr Skripal and his daughter as follows:
“On the bench there was a couple – an older guy and a
younger girl. She was leant in on him. It looked like she’d passed out. He was
doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky. I felt anxious, like
I should step in but they looked so out of it. They looked like they had been
taking something quite strong.”
Which description — A-234 or BZ — fits more closely
with Ms Church’s statement of the Skripals’ condition on 4th March, and indeed
their subsequent recovery?
19. The
method for decontaminating BZ is as follows:
“Gentle, but thorough flushing of skin and hair with
water or soap and water is required. Bleach is not necessary. Remove clothing.”
On the other hand, according
to Gary Aitkenhead at Porton Down, there is no known antidote to A-234
(Novichok).
Which of these most closely fits with the advice given
by PHE to those who believed they may have become contaminated, to use warm
water and detergent and to thoroughly wash their hands with soap and water?
20. Can
Porton Down confirm that it has not had any samples of BZ in its possession in
2018?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.