I should wish to update the article which disproves the latest set of “evidence” which is provided by a reliable source of disinformation known as mailonline which was reported by others.
Additionally, I would wish to show why neither they nor Russia are responsible.
General points about the two individuals
The claim that nervousness is indicative of guilt
The idea that nervousness in indicative of guilt is not worth taking seriously to anyone with a half a braincell, given, amongst other things, the fact that the person who was nervous
- Was probably reserved, introvert which is indicated by his interest in coin collecting. He might even have been on the autistic spectrum.
- Had never been on TV before.
- They were apparently dope smokers who had an orgy and such things are with some exceptions, not favorably looked upon in most of Russia. This would I would imagine render both of them nervous and unable to defend themselves by discussing what they had been up to and where they had been in full.
- Moreover, the fact that they smoked cannabis explains why their movements were shall we say somewhat erratic and might mean they can’t remember in detail lending further ammunition to the FCO who think they can claim this and that.
They are dope smokers
- The idea that a couple of dope smokers who were probably smoking skunk (It apparently usually is that form of cannabis now and this is indicated by the strong smell) and whose mental and motor function was deleteriously affected by THC as can be seen could by the interview, who had been partying all night with a prostitute and had very little sleep and no doubt energy, put “novichok” on a door-handle in a city miles away and moreover did so without risk to their life is comical. In this sense, it is rather like to concept of a cannabis legalisation march, with people bumping into lampposts.
- The idea that they risked an op by causing problems and getting into a fight whereby they could be questioned and potentially searched by police (given that they are Russian) doesn’t make sense.
- Such people were employed by the GRU who would have no doubt sacked two drug takers, particularly given the harsh drugs laws in Russia, should be laughed at.
- The GRU employed people who they know would subject to potential blackmail through the use of prostitutes and drugs is obviously incredibly silly. It is more likely a form of projection on the part of the British Intelligence agencies.
- Under such circumstances, the GRU would opted to risk their reputation and/or careers to get personal authorization from the Kremlin or indeed Vladimir Putin to use these two as part of an op whereby nerve agents are employed should also be laughed at which I can’t help but do as I image is the case with most people.
The claim that tourists who come to the UK on a business visa is suspicious
This is to perhaps cover for the fact that they were there for the aforementioned activities. It’s a very good cover.
Why were these two named?
- They are Russian and that fits the cognitive bias/needs of the British deep state
- The British state were aware that they are dope smokers and had had an orgy and were hoping that they would not come into the limelight potentially fearing reprisals on the basis of their activities. In effect, the British state in naming these two was attempting to blackmail them into keeping silent because they would not wish to have any focus upon them given the potential for the press and especially the British press to be intrusive.
The GPS evidence:
GPS record can easily be faked, as proved by the fact that GCHQ has a department for faking such things as emails and by my own discoveries with respect to this technology. We are apparently meant to rely upon their say so.
On that score, it is fairly odd given that
- There are two of them
- Most people have mobile phones
- There is only one route given according to the map of their route which is based upon GPS signals
- They must have been separate at one point or another (toilet) something which isn’t indicated.
The fact that it was in broad daylight:
They certainly wouldn’t do what they did in broad daylight nor would orders be given for this to be done.
The CCTV evidence
They have not shown any in the vicinity of the Skripal’s house and we are meant to rely upon their word. They have also not shown any on the day of their visit on the Sunday from what I understand. The Police have not said that they were seen near the Skripal’s house.
The general attitude on the part of the British establishment
The general attitude from the press and the government is one where they act as judge and prosecutor and whereby the trial is done by media. Any rational person and indeed an impartial judicial system would easily conclude that the likelihood of a fair trial is unlikely.
Overall, it really does remind me of the way in which the college, GCHQ and so on treated me with regards to their accusations against me when I complained about their treatment of me with regards to amongst other things intrusions into my room in college by members of British intelligence.
Why the fairly muted response from Russia?
They have indeed complained but it does seem fairly muted when compared with the attitude of Britain or indeed what I would presume to be a normal reaction which is one of outrage, as they have demonstrated in the past with regards to things which the UK has done and which affects them less. They are perhaps partly aware that this whole affair is to cover for the fact that GCHQ is infiltrated by members from their government as I outline elsewhere.
Why hasn’t the hotel room been decontaminated?
Apparently they found traces of a deadly nerve agent in the hotel where the two stayed back in May but have taken no steps to decontaminate it and indeed have not notified the owner who no doubt rented out the room to others.
Why did the British police apparently claim they identified these people back in May?
According to mailonline, they called in two superrecognisers to trawl through 1000s of hours of footage in just over a week, which would not be humanly possible
And yet it is claimed that the British authorities identified the two individuals concerned back in May which clearly is not true
The timing indicates that they were clearly not responsible
I’ve borrowed this from Jon Gaunt. The men arrived in Salisbury at 11.48 on the second day and therefore the poison couldn’t have been put on the door before noon.
We know from previous statements and CCTV that the Skripals left their house in the cul-de-sac at 9.15 on the Sunday morning. There has never been any mention of them coming back, until now and the Police have or cannot provide any CCTV of them driving back past the garage etc although they were caught by three separate cameras when they left home.
The behaviour indicates that they were clearly not responsible
I’ve also borrowed this from Jon Gaunt. Why, after administering the deadly nerve agent on to the door handle, did they go window shopping after walking straight past the train station? Why did they seem more interested in looking at old coins in a shop window than hot footing it out of town and making their escape? And just how did the perfume/nerve gas get back in the sealed container that Junkie Charlie said, in a TV interview he found and gave to his girlfriend?
The fact that an interpol notice has not been issued indicates they are not responsible
The British government has claimed that they have strong enough evidence and have issued an INTERPOL warrant to arrest them the minute they leave Russia
Here is a list of people who have been placed on the INTERPOL red notice list which is the list used for warrants which are issued by governments
As one can see there is no Interpol warrant for the two Russians and it has been some time since the announcement so either
- Interpol has not issued an arrest warrant because it knows the evidence is lacking.
- The UK has not issued a warrant because it knows the evidence is lacking.
The claims in the article
1) What about the Novichok found in hotel room?
The nerve agent was found in their hotel room for two other potential reasons than the one given
- Because it is a persistent substance which was spread by emergency service workers including police who did not wear protective clothing. If it had been the case that the container somehow leaked in the baggage then they would have become ill by touching the clothing. If it had been the case that the container had been opened, prepared or even sprayed by them in enclosed space of a hotel room, where was their protective clothing?
- Given the poisoning or both myself and Gareth Williams and no doubt others, it cannot be ruled out that it was the British who planted it there.
- On a related note, if it is claimed that I am spreading Russian propaganda, I have given notification that the murder of Gareth Williams along with the Salisbury incident were both intended to conceal Russian infiltration within GCHQ. The later occurred within 48 hours of my complaint to the IPT concerning British intelligence attempting to interfere in the writing of that dossier, the timing of which should not regarded as coincidental given the fact that the smears against Michael Flynn concerning the Cambridge Intelligence Seminars at Corpus Christ College occurred shortly after I pointed out harassment which were taking place at the instigation of members of British Intelligence within St Catharines.
- This culture of lax security has changed little since the days of Jock Kane. Proof that GCHQ has a problem in that respect and a lack of concern except in so far as it affects their status and reputation (most notably with regards to the potential for British Intelligence to sell its services as part of brexit) and causes its individual members embarrassment, is proved by the fact that they have attempted and will no doubt continue to attempt, as I have related here and elsewhere, to recruit someone who leaks, namely myself.
- It is also proved by the fact that they used the announcement as to who was guilty to bury the buzzfeed report, a report which does indicate Russian involvement within British intelligence in several more important respects.
- More importantly, the buzzfeed dossier shows that they have a policy to silence such people by using, amongst other things, psychiatry which can be said, under the circumstances whereby someone is deliberately misdiagnosed, to amount to a form of poisoning. As someone who went to St Catharines which is a center of recruitment for GCHQ, I can attest to the fact that this does happen and the audio in relation to what happened as well as related material quite clearly shows the involvement of SIS in my stay.
It would be quite clear to most people that is clearly nonsense, given the fact that the hotel had not been decontaminated after the visit of the police, the hotel owner was not notified and guests were allowed to stay. Moreover as pointed out by Russia insider, tthe guests who had been in that room beforehand were not contacted.
2) Why stay in East London anyway?
They misjudged the distance on a map as I am not unknown to do (hence why I commonly chose a place some kilometers from the city center of the place where I am staying). They come from Russia and England looks small no doubt on a map (as several places do to me) and they did not prepare in advance (as indicated by the interview). They probably thought it would be nipping out to a local town.
East London might also have to do with the fact that they are came for the aforementioned activities.
3) Their complaints about the snowy weather:
It had been snowing the past couple of days and they might have walked in some snow. Snow does not melt in 24 hours usually especially at 9 degrees.
Along with this video
proves there was snow and slush in that area.
The claim that there was snow up to their knees can be explained potentially by the fact that they went through some snow/slush in an attempt to get to Old Sarum. Indications of the fact that this may be the case are as follows:
- They walked quite a distance anyway.
- They saw no notification of bus services or became aware of the fact that there were none.
- Old Sarum is within walking distance through fields of Salisbury (2 miles)
- The GPS logs are unreliable given the fact that they can be faked by GCHQ.
in any case, the splatter from the slush would come up to their knees, something which is perhaps not reflected in the translation of the interview and the interpretation has been twisted to suit.
4) Wrong direction:
Where does it say which direction to visit it in and why should this matter. It’s irrelevant. They were in fact stoned.
5) No pictures of them visiting cathedral.
The police and authorities are acting as judge and prosecutor and given the usage of the DSMA notice as indicated by a) Craig Murray and b) the lack of response to the FOIA request in relation to Russian disinformation, we have no way of knowing whether they have released the information. And they have a record in respect of withholding information. I have emails to prove
- There was a similar withholding of CCTV evidence in 2013 by British Intelligence/the college in relation to the thefts which they arranged from my room, in complete breach of the Data Protection Act(1998)
- During this period when there was a burglary in the college bar and they did arrange for the CCTV to be looked at.
On a related note, the archbishop of Salisbury claims he did not see the two Russians which is an impossible claim according the GDPR, whereby CCTV has to be destroyed after, I think from recollection, 3 months.
6) Bus tours to Stonehenge were NOT cancelled.
There’s more than tour to Stonehenge one and they probably checked the wrong one being foreign (and not speaking English very well)
7) Airport Entry Photo
Russia indeed got this wrong
8) Fake photos proved real
Where does Russia say they faked the images? The British have not provided an answer to the FOI request about such matters so this is itself disinformation.
9) Bad timing
10) Two return flights
Perhaps they were undecided as to whether decided to stay and (rather wastefully in my view) booked two lots of tickets.
A general comment about the allegation that it was Russia
The location of the application of the nerve agent was the park (or nearby) and not the house
- Why would an assassin spray a door-handle and not apply it with something more suitable?
- It is not logical to state that the Skripals left the house at noon or so (and there’s no evidence for this been provided anyway), after touching the nerve agent on the door handle, drove around town, went to a restaurant and to a pub, whereupon the father who appears to have a heart condition, drank alcohol, walked to the park with no apparent problem and were both suddenly affected at the same time. The only time a substance of that precision has ever been witnessed is in Blackadder.
- In the Amesbury incident, Dawn Sturgess fell ill within fifteen minutes according to Charlie Rowley, who was the other victim. As it is the same substance, so must have the Skripals
4. The fact that they continue to point to the door handle which is so obviously wrong on the basis of the evidence speaks of someone trying to conceal the obvious. In other words, a cover up.
The claim that Russia is spreading disinformation in relation to the case
The United Kingdom claims that Russia is spreading disinformation about the case but is unable to provide examples in relation to this via a Freedom of Information request. under the guise of it coming under “international relations”. This is whilst they are keen to claim that Russia is spreading disinformation even though they cannot provide examples.
The allegation that Russia is spreading disinformation is therefore itself disinformation
This is proven amongst other things by the fact that the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson claimed that the DSTL said the nerve agent from Russia when they were unable to derive the source.
The claim that only Russia had the means and motive
This is certainly nonsense as, given
- Even given what I revealed in relation to Russia on here today, Russia has only ever attempted to use “red sparrows”. I am a greater target than….
- …..Mr Skirpal who as an FSB officer was put in prison for spying for the British, let out early, deported to the United Kingdom but nonetheless asked to come back. It is fanciful to suggest that several years later after having had the opportunity of doing so, they decided to come all the way to the United Kingdom and to kill him with a nerve agent, given the above and especially given the fact that he had nothing new to divulge. On that score, after the attack, Julia Skripal expressed a desire to go back to Russia which is fairly strange behaviour if it were indeed Russia.
- The chemical formula is openly available on amazon to anyone with the resources to fabricate it.
- A former Kremlin official, Valery Morozov, who was an associate of Sergei Skripal after he was exiled to the UK stated that Mr Skripal was in regular contact with the Russian embassy.
- The response from the Russian embassy to this claim is nuanced in that they state that “They are not aware of any contacts” rather than denying the fact by saying that “He was not in contact with the Russian embassy”. It is suspicious that the investigatory bodies have not commented on this nor denied that this was the case by calling it disinformation especially given the fact that I have asked for examples of this.
- He apparently according to reports received anonymous encrypted threatening emails “telling him not to meddle” but given that the emails were anonymous, it cannot be said for certain that they came from Russia.
- What discounts such a conclusion is the fact that
- The emails are anonymous and encrypted but the message is clear stating that “Russia is coming to get you”. In which case, given the message, why bother with the anonymity and encryption? It’s like me saying that “I would like to kill my neighbour and doing so in code which can be decrypted. The reason its anonymous and encrypted is someone trying to give the impression that the source is Russia whilst coming their tracks. Such misattribution is something the CIA apparently carried out as revealed by wikileaks in vault 7.
- It is inconsistent behavior to be brazen in its attempt to kill the Skripals (even though the facts do not support this) but feeble and anonymous with an ex-Kremlin official.
The fact that Porton Down was ruled out as a source at the outset.
Reasonably in any police investigation, for the sake of objectivity and impartiality, all potential suspects are interviewed, even if just to rule things out.
The fact that the authorities who act as judge and prosecutor in this instance, instantly without the slightest investigation, dismissed any suggestion that it may have come from Porton Down is under such circumstances suspicious.
It is also suspicious that they pushed hard for the OPCW to have a mandate to determine the source of the nerve agent after that body had determined the type of nerve agent which was employed.
Why I can work this out and others including the police can’t
Given how obvious this is, it is evidence of a large scale conspiracy, stupidity, gullibility or a combination of all three and as such there are people concealing something within the British state, something which is not unknown given the Gareth Williams case.
I gave notification of the fact that there were spies in the Russian embassy first
I remarked upon the fact that Russia had spies in its embassy on March the 9th on my facebook page (is there an embassy that doesn’t given that’s what diplomats do, especially American ones who had 750 in Moscow alone last year)
Here is a copy of that statement.
Five days later, the British decide to expel some “spies” and to use this as a pretext to claim some credit for spurring others to action presumably
- in order to conceal their embarrassment and fear of my complaint which concerned their interference into the writing of my dossier.
- Because it is low hanging fruit, as it were..
Now given everything else and the nature of the surveillance of facebook and indeed myself by GCHQ and others, it is implausible to suggest that there is no relation between such statements by myself and actions on their part.
Some speculation as to where they potentially got the idea from
This is mere speculation but it has been the case in the past that the intelligence services, most notably MI6, have based the evidence which they use to justify certain actions upon films and television. This is because they lack imagination something which is partially indicated by the fact that they don’t like mavericks.
There are a few examples of this
- As was reported in the Chilcott enquiry, this was the case with the dossier which was used to justify the decision to invade Iraq in that the evidence in that dossier was inspired by the the Rock starring Nicholas Cage.
- When trying to recruit me in 2014, I showed fake evidence that there was an FBI investigation into what turned out to be the intelligence services, as well as the company whose interest they nominally protect. I took inspiration from a Doctor Who story by Douglas Adams called City of Death and used a tampered email with the words THISISAFAKE in the header. This was not remarked upon by the person who was attempting to recruit me in that she took fright and badgered me..
- In turn as part of their attempt to stop brexit, the civil service got inspiration from a sitcom called “The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin which is in part based upon the SpyCatcher novel as well as another doctor who story. For reference, it is no longer possible for them to derail brexit in the aforesaid fashion given that such an attempt on their part is in the public domain.
In the case of the Salisbury incident, they will have certainly noted the fact that whilst I was in Russia I developed a fixed interest in the television series Sherlock most notably because this in turn appears to have had an effect upon work such as is seen here (I did however start the blog before any such interest developed).
It is not beyond the realms of the imagination therefore given the usage of film and tv as sources of inspiration by the intelligence services, that they will have done the same in this instance, especially given the fact that they only will have had 2 days to plot and plan the event. According to this theory,they will have
- Remembered the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum and my interest in Sherlock.
- As a consequence of this, first looked at the episode where Holmes mentions/speculates that Sherlock is on the autistic spectrum.
- Noticed that it was the Baskerville episode involving a civil servant who poisoned individuals with a nerve agent near the Sherlock equivalent of Porton Down.
- Used this as inspiration.
This is mere speculation however.
I note that the following article has appeared which proves my point that Britain has some beef against Russia because of its need to have a bogey man to sell the services, such as they are, of its intelligence agencies as part of any security deal rather than letting others have the benefit any objective assessment.
The allegation might well be true but bearing in mind the way in which the secretive and underhand way in which British have conducted themselves with regards to this whole incident and the information in relation to the case, it is I feel understandable if regrettable.
Although there have been allegations that Russia has hacked elections, it has never been claimed by the United States that they have altered any results. And it would hardly make sense for a) the analysis to take place, which would no doubt occur offline, b) the lab to have the results and c) the russians to alter them. The lab would be aware of the correct result and the fact that it would have been altered.
The Russians were after information.
A sane attitude in this case and similar cases involving international disputes with regards to chemical or nerve agents would be to leave it to an impartial body such as the OPCW rather than in the hands of an obviously biased country such as the United Kingdom which feels it has the right and reflects well on the case to act as prosecutor and judge.
I would also like to comment upon St Catharine’s to whom this article relates and upon whom I have been commenting. They form part of British Intelligence, have read the article and have elected to do some PR in that the subtext of the tweet is “We don’t care about stuff for which we have some responsibility, lots of people are interested in St catharines and we’re fully booked”. This essentially proves my point about the fact that their priorities are ones of position, reputation and status and speaks volumes about their priorities and about the fact that British Intelligence doesn’t fundamentally give two hoots about such matters.
As indeed has Sir Cupboard who was embroiled in the Iraq war or indeed whoever is managing his twitter feed.