Thursday, September 13, 2018

Ambassador Craig Murray Probes the Alibi of Petrov and Bashirov, the Alleged (by Theresa May) Skripal/Novichok Poisoners

On reading the interview given by the Russians, Petrov and Bashirov, alleged by the British Government to have poisoned the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, by painting the, as-developed-in-Russia, WMD, Novichok (allegedly seven times deadlier than Britain's own deadly nerve agent, VX), on the front door-knob of Sergei Skripal's house, I was far from convinced of the innocence of their weekend visit to Britain.

To be unconvinced of their innocence, is not of course, to be convinced of their guilt, but it does mean remaining open to the possibility that their visit at the time of the Skripal nerve agent poisonings was not coincidental (or perhaps we should say alleged Skripal nerve agent poisonings, since the resident in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury hospital to which the Skripals were taken for treatment denied that anyone had been admitted to the hospital with symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning).

Likewise, Ambassador Craig Murray was, initially, far from convinced by their account of the innocence of Petrov and Bashirov. On reflection, however, he concluded, for reasons set forth in this blog post, that the story offered by the Russians, is in fact, entirely credible, and, in this, I think Murray's arguments are compelling.

The Russians, Murray concludes, could very well have been, as they claim, on a weekend break to see the sights in and around Salisbury, including the city's superb Norman cathedral, and the nearby ancient settlement of Old Sarum, but were prevented from making the two-mile expedition from Salisbury to Old Sarum by the unseasonable snowfall that shut-down public transport that weekend.

Thus, the story of the Skripal poisonings remains what it was at the outset: an allegation against Russia by the British Government unsupported by any convincing evidence made known to the public. Indeed, since the now reportedly recovered victims of the crime have been kept entirely from public view with the exception of one video-taped statement by Yulia Skripal, a statement that, as I have previously explained, could very well be entirely fake, it is open to question whether any crime against the Skripals actually occurred.

More certainly, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess of Amesbury, England were poisoned, with deadly effect in the case of Dawn Sturgess, by what the police report to be Novichok contained in a perfume spray bottle that Charlie Rowley scavenged from a litter bin in Salisbury. But how that connects with Russia, if indeed it does connect with Russia, has never been explained by British authorities.

It seems then, that the case against Russia consists in the following facts:

(1) The alleged victims of an (alleged) attack with the nerve agent, Novichok, were Russian.

(2) One of the alleged victims was a Russian spy turned traitor who, however, had been pardoned by the Russian state and released from Russian gaol some years ago under an international spy swap.

(3) The nerve agent by which the Russian victims were allegedly poisoned was developed in Uzbekistan, then a member of the Soviet Union, and is thus Russia-connected. The connection is essentially meaningless, however, since Novichok can be readily synthesized by any competent organic chemist, and has been synthesized in various countries, including, probably, the U.K.

(4) The Russians, Petrov and Bashirov, happened to be on a weekend visit to Salisbury, as tourists so they say with apparent plausibility (along with probably a number of other Russians), the weekend that the Skripals were poisoned.

(5) In May, two months after the Skripal poisonings (or rather we should say alleged poisonings), the police were reported, this month, (see the George Galloway video included in my earlier blog post, after 9 min and 12 seconds) to have investigated the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov apparently shared a bed on the night of March 3rd. There, the police report finding a trace of Novichok, yet despite the deadliness of this nerve agent, the police neither warned the hotel's proprietor of what they had found, nor instigated a chemical WMD clean-up at the hotel, and thus did nothing whatever to save from harm the many people who, since March 4th, have presumably slept in that Novichok-contaminated room.

The implication seems clear, the alleged Novichok contamination of the room of the "flea-pit" (George Galloway's description of the hotel) where the Russians stayed must have been so slight as to be (a) totally harmless, and (b) and to make its supposed identification questionable. Indeed, if Galloway's description of the hotel as a "flea-pit" is appropriate, it could well be that the organo-phosphorus compound found in the hotel room and claimed by the police to be Novichok was, in fact, a regular organo-phosphorus pesticide that is likely used on a regular basis in cheap London hotels catering to poorer people from around the world, many of them likely carrying with them fleas, bed bugs, and lice.

If there is other relevant evidence against Russia, the British Government has not revealed it, which suggests that the case against Russia has been fabricated as a justification for intensified Western economic sanctions against Russia, which provides both a military and, with its revival of Russian ethnic nationalism and Christianity, a cultural threat to the elites that rule the Western nations and seek to force the submission of the European peoples to global governance through the promotion of multi-culturalism and  mass replacement immigration.

Petrov and Bashirev might perhaps seek to reverse their present ill-fortune by suing Theresa May for defamation of character.

In response to the RT interview with the Petrov and Bashirov, Theresa May has stated through a spokesperson that:

[T]he suspects' comments [i.e., the comments of Petrov and Bashirov] were "an insult" and "deeply offensive."

Exactly how they were an insult, and deeply offensive, except inasmuch as that, if true, they implied that Theresa May is a big fat liar, was not explained by the Prime Minister's Spokesperson who went on to say:

"The lies and blatant fabrications in this interview given to a Russian state-sponsored TV station are an insult to the public's intelligence" and "More importantly they are deeply offensive to the victims and loved ones of this horrific attack," but again, no explanation is given as to how the claim of innocence when charged with murder can be considered offensive.

Furthermore, the prime minister's spokesperson told reporters that police had set out "very clearly" the evidence against the two suspects although, oddly enough, the public seems to have no idea what that evidence is, other than the claimed trace of Novichok in the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov are said to have stayed the night, a trace so insignificant that the police forgot to tell the hotel owner about it or do anything about a cleanup of the contaminated room. Indeed a trace so slight that the evidence that it actually was Novichok has never been made public.

And while we are dealing with unsubstantiated claims, here's what seems like a hypothesis worthy of consideration that was offered by CalDre at Craig Murray's blog:
... Sergei was a triple agent and these two gents were his handlers, probably sent to pick up something. UK discovered he was a triple agent, and the planned drop, and “attacked” the Skripals, blaming his handlers, to kill two birds with one stone.
Daily Mail: EXCLUSIVE: Owner of hotel where novichok spies stayed for two nights was only told by police about his killer guests YESTERDAY - and he still doesn't know which room they were in

No comments:

Post a Comment