Friday, June 15, 2018

The Skripal Poisonings: How? By Whom? With What? And Where Are The Skripals Now?

A post by Rob Slane of the Blogmire Blog offers some significant details concerning the alleged Russian poisoning of the pardoned Russian traitor and British agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, as they sat on a park bench in the quiet English cathedral city of Salisbury on the afternoon of March 4, this year.

Based on video evidence from the scene of the crime, Lane proposes a plausible theory of how, and by whom, the Skripal's were poisoned, a key question intensively obfuscated by the British media.

Lane also explains why the poison could not have been the deadly nerve agent, Novichok, as claimed by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, a claim endlessly repeated by the British media.

Instead, Lane suggests that the poison could have been, as we have also suggested, the widely available and much less deadly nerve agent BZ, which was initially reported to have been found in blood samples from the Skripal's, a fact that was later attributed to it having been added to the blood samples by the analytical laboratory for the purpose, so it was bizarrely claimed, of calibration.

In connection with the question of the identity of the poison,  Lane constructs the following relevant time-line of events:

15:35 – Sergei Skripal and Yulia leave Zizzis. They make their way to The Maltings, presumably along Market Walk (although strangely there is no CCTV footage of this), a walk of about two minutes or so. 

15:37 – When they got to The Maltings, they appear not to have gone straight to the bench, but to the Avon Playground (approximately 50 yards from the bench), where they spent some time feeding ducks. They presumably then went over to the bench, a few minutes after this.

15:47 – The mysterious pair, one of whom is carrying a red bag, are seen on CCTV walking through Market Walk in the direction of The Maltings. 

16:03 – One of the first witnesses to the scene, Freya Church, who was working in the nearby Snap Fitness, leaves work at 16:00 or thereabouts, and sees the Skripals on the bench at approximately 16:03. According to her account, they were already “out of it”, which suggests that they had been poisoned some minutes previously. She noted that there was a red bag on the floor next to Yulia’s feet. 

16:15 – Emergency services are called and the pair are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, Yulia by helicopter and Sergei by ambulance. Upon admittance, the hospital believed that the pair had overdosed on Fentanyl, and treated this as an opioid poisoning for at least 24 hours after the incident. Later that evening – Police remove the red bag, and it has never been heard of or mentioned in connection with the story since.

The last point, that the Skripals were assumed to have overdosed on fentanyl, would explain the letter by Stephen Davies, the Salisbury Hospital Resident in Emergency Medicine, stating that no one was treated at the hospital for nerve agent poisoning.

A question that Lane does not address is the video that was released showing Julia Skripal in an interview with Reuters following her release from hospital. This video is worthy of close examination.

There are at least two remarkable things to note. First, Yulia Skripal appears not only much slimmer, than before her poisoning ordeal, but distinctly younger too, which is an odd consequence of long drawn out struggle for life.

Second, Yulia, wears a dress with a high collar, but open at the front as if intended to focus attention on her deep tracheotomy scar. That seems strange. Would not most women with the misfortune to bear such a disfiguring scar have chosen a garment with a collar that concealed the scar? And if that is conceded, then it seems reasonable to assume that Yulia displayed her scar for a purpose, namely, to leave no doubt in the public mind that she had indeed been close to death and in need of surgical intervention as a result of her alleged Russian poisoning.

But if the video is a piece of theatre to reinforce the British Government narrative on the Skripal poisoning, it would seem wise to consider the possibility that the entire interview is fake. It would surely not be difficult, given the latest methods of film creation and modification, to take an old video of a slightly younger and slimmer Yulia in an unidentifiable location and dub it with a different script. How many British or American viewers would be any the wiser? Surely few indeed: she is after all, speaking Russian, not English. And to such a false presentation, the addition of a tracheotomy scar would surely not have been difficult.

Will we have a chance to learn more from Yulia in the coming months? Unlikely. The story about the Skripals has already caused the British Government enough embarrassment. More than a month ago the CIA offered to "protect" the Skripals by providing them with new identities in America. Presumably, therefore, the Skripals will by now have been taken care of, whether of their own volition or not.

What this story seems to show is that not only is the news fake, but that it is now faked at the direct instigation of the state.

Related Posts:

No comments:

Post a Comment