Joining Some Dots on the Skripal Case: Part 1 – An Official Story That Doesn’t Hold Water

Donate

Joining Some Dots on the Skripal Case: Part 1 – An Official Story That Doesn’t Hold Water

Written by Rob Slane; Originally appeared on theblogmire.com

I have asked a lot of questions in relation to the Skripal case and many, if not most, are still unanswered. However, I want in this piece to go further than asking questions, and to start to join a few dots together. There is much to say, and rather than doing it in one long piece, which only three people will have the attention span to sit through, I want to do it over a number of articles. Probably four or five. We shall see.

When I say that I am hoping to join some dots together, please note that what I am not attempting to do is state anything conclusively. Rather, I am simply advancing a theory, based on what I have observed so far, and I do so in the full knowledge that there may well be things I have missed, facts which I am as yet unaware of, and other facts which are still to be revealed. These things may well blow any theory I advance apart.

But before I get to that, there is a question that must first be asked: Why is a theory needed in the first place? It’s not as if there isn’t an official one out there. Indeed there is. In which case, why the need for another theory to explain what happened?

The reason is that the official story, put forward by the British Government, is wholly lacking in credibility. It has actually come as a surprise to me just how many people there are out there who don’t buy the official story. Anecdotally, I would say that those looking at the official narrative and wondering how on earth it stacks up includes many who would perhaps not normally question the official line on things.

And so attempting to come up with another theory of what happened has nothing to do with advancing what is usually called a “conspiracy theory”. If the claims of the official story did match the facts, then advancing an entirely different theory could well be seen as a conspiracy theory. But since the claims made by the British Government and in the compliant media do not stack up, this is simply a case of seeking an alternative theory that tries to make more sense of the known facts.

But what is it about the Government story that makes it lack credibility? There are a number of things, but let’s just keep this simple. Let’s begin by looking at what it alleges. This can best be summed up by the words of the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, in the statement she made to the House of Commons on 14th March 2018:

“Mr Speaker, on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. And there were only two plausible explanations.

Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

Leaving aside Mrs May’s allegations for a moment, any impartial observer would immediately notice something odd about this. Her statement was made on 14th March. This was just 10 days since the Skripals were poisoned. At that time, the investigation had hardly begun, and had not yet established any of the following basic facts:

  • Where the Skripals were poisoned
  • When the Skripals were poisoned
  • How they were poisoned
  • Who it was that poisoned them.

In other words, she reached conclusions before the establishing of facts, and it goes without saying that this is the very opposite of a rational approach. Indeed, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle warned us through his most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes:

“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

But what of her actual claims? The statement that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations is entirely irrelevant to establishing guilt in this case. Past behaviour can be useful evidence to support a case, but guilt must always be proved on the basis of the facts and evidence in the case at hand, and on them alone. Anything else is simply dangerous and wrong.

Which means that the Government’s case essentially relies on just two parts:

  1. That Mr Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, along with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were poisoned by the military grade nerve agent, A-234 (one of the so-called “Novichok” nerve agents).
  2. That because this substance was developed in Russia (actually the Soviet Union), it therefore must have originated from that country.

However, both of these apparent facts are demonstrably untrue.

To take the second point first, it has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that a number of other countries have either produced the substance, or know how to produce it. The Czech Government has admitted producing a small quantity of the closely related substance, A-230; Iran has produced Novichok, which it registered with the OPCW; The German Intelligence Agency, BND, was given the formula back in the 1990s, and they shared it with a number of other NATO countries, including the US and UK. The Edgewood Chemical and Biological Defense Command in Maryland, USA, recorded the formula back in 1998.

What is more, as the Moon of Alabama website points out, David Collum, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Cornell University has not only stated that his students could create the substance, but he actually got them to do an experiment to make it. According to the results, 15 out of 16 students did so successfully!

All of which means that the claim that the poison must have come from Russia is demonstrably untrue.

But if analysis of that second claim shows the British Government’s theory to be somewhat dodgy, scrutiny of the first shows it to be entirely false. Given the toxicity of A-234, being around 5-8 times more toxic than VX (some reports state it as being 10 times more toxic), had the Skripals come into contact with it on the door handle of Mr Skripal’s house, as is alleged, one of two things would have occurred:

a) They would either have died within a few minutes of coming into contact with it or

b) In the remote possibility that they had survived, they would have suffered for the rest of their short lives from irreparable damage to their central nervous system, with a number of chronic health issues, such as cirrhosis, toxic hepatitis, and epilepsy (see here for details of what I understand to be the only known survivor of poisoning by this substance, Andrei Zheleznyakov).

What they would not have done is spent the next four hours swanning around Salisbury, going for a drink and then for a meal in a restaurant. What they would not have done is to exhibit symptoms closer to having been poisoned by a hallucinogenic than a military grade nerve agent. And they most certainly would not have collapsed at exactly the same time as each other, four hours later, after showing no previous signs of illness in the restaurant.

Yet as it is, not only are the Skripals and D.S. Bailey still alive, but none have suffered irreparable damage to their nervous system. In fact, in her conversation with her cousin, Viktoria, on 5th April, Yulia Skripal specifically made mention that “everyone’s health is fine, there are no irreparable things“.

Given that this is so, it is entirely rational to come to the following conclusion:

The claim that Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and D.S. Bailey were poisoned by A-234, which is one of the most deadly nerve agents known to man, and which either kills or leaves its victims with irreparable damage, is demonstrably untrue.

Having dealt with the official story, I want in Part 2 to deal with what I believe to be some of the most interesting clues in this case, each of which is being ignored or swept under the carpet.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Barba_Papa

    This why the Skripal case, and others too for that matter, are so damning for the Western media. Anyone who knows a little about chemical weapons, or other military matters too, know that things are not as clear cut or black and white as often presented. As you notice more and more plotholes in the media narrative, some big enough to fly a Death Star through, you start to wonder. Are journalists that stupid nowadays? Has standards slipped that bad in their education? Did they only study literature or something and not hard facts? Or…… are they pushing through an agenda? Have they lost all sense of objectivity? Are they unconsciously, or worse, consciously twisting facts to suit a narrative. And if so, whose? Based on what most people here are posting I’m more then certain that most think they already have the answer.

    After Trump got inaugurated, there was this late night talkshow on Dutch television. I remember they had the head editor of the Dutch public news as a guest and he talked about how he had been to Washington for the inauguration. And that he had attended the anti-Trump rallies. How he felt that it was important to do that. And I remember thinking: Dude! You’re the head-editor of the news. How can you attend a protest rally against Trump and still pretend to objectively cover Trump’s presidency? You should be saying ‘I’m the chief editor of the news, it is my job to be objective and impartial, like a judge I am not allowed a personal opinion. Ask me and I will give none’. That’s what he should have said!

    And they wonder why people seek alternative news.

    • HardHawk

      What I noticed, alternative news, also carry the same none challenging repetition of the official news. It is one thing not to taking sides and impartially presenting the facts it is another thing to promote and not challenge the morons who assume the rest of the thinking world, is as morons if not worst, than themselves.

      They may have this right to think it as they are voted where they are by the voters who follow them fanatically and blindly, other wise they never get to the positions they are now.

      • Barba_Papa

        Right now I’d settle for news that just gives news without pushing a narrative. It’s becoming so blatantly obvious lately.

      • FlorianGeyer

        Yes, Silence is a cowardly form of censorship and indeed Accepting censorship..

    • FlorianGeyer

      ” Or…… are they pushing through an agenda? ”

      The obvious answer to your question is that ‘ Many are politically biased journalists and all to many others know that going against the Official Narrative will be most detrimental to their careers ‘

      • TiredOfBsToo

        Don’t forget the various Deep State (i.e. military industrial complex) plants in the media….

        • FlorianGeyer

          How could we forget the US Deep State. They entertain all of us with their amoral stupidity :)

      • Barba_Papa

        I agree on the first part, but in the Netherlands and in the UK both public news services have a very left wing bias, whereas both governments are rightwing. Wouldn’t it follow that if the journalists followed the official narrative it would be more right wing as well? I know that for decades the Conservatives have complained bitterly about BBC bias against them.

        • FlorianGeyer

          Journalistic bias is of course an age old problem but in recent decades the bias has become polarised by the media ownership being in the hands of very few corporations.

          Whether Right , Left or Centre or any other bias, this very unhealthy for any society or nation as it allows wealthy oligarchs to peddle their own opinions as propaganda.

          Just as I expect the Weather Forecast to be factual and without biased opinions, I also expect News to be factual and inclusive of all news facts.

          If I wish to listen to opinions, I do not accept or expect such opinions to be passed off as reality without due process of all the facts gleaned from all parties concerned.

          • Barba_Papa

            Or at the very least a disclaimer which states we’re listening to opinion.

            But like I’ve said before these days I mostly switch on the news to look at the pretty newsreaders. You’re from the UK, right? Is Sophie Raworth still presenting the BBC News?

          • FlorianGeyer

            I am not sure if she is or not :)
            BBC News is a celebration of trivia these days. these days.

    • Merijn

      I know one thing for sure… the Mainstream Media are Lying every word they Write down in Newspapers & Present on TV only Biased Arrogant Bullshit all comin’ from Reuters… They speak with forked tongue because that is what their Producers, Editors & Bosses wants them to do… They are sucked up in a System of Staying within the Western Dictated Narrative…. Step out of Line and get not Published or Lose your Job…

  • FlorianGeyer

    I look forward to the next part of the Scripal Affair.
    Sanity at last.

  • TiredOfBsToo

    From UK dictates about the symptoms, the ensuing geopolitics that followed and the hiding of the Skripals to keep them from appearing before a live international audience, the one thing that sticks out is that….. there was no toxic agent used, the Skripals were drugged and then kidnapped by a state actor, the UK, for geopolitical gain. The problem for the UK now is…. how to keep the Skripals from ever appearing in public to discuss what all victims do afterwards, discussing their true ordeal in public.