Deja vu: Convicted "spy" poisoned in UK

[Venom]

"Ruslan Boshirov" a north-Caucasian name, probably an alias, from a Muslim-majority region just went to visit the Cathedral.

Uncompelling counterargument maybe but it looks as though they didn't think things through for their big softball interview.

At least Lugovoi gave a brief lecture on the chemical properties of Polonium-210

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[fagin]

No idea if this is legit or not but....

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by fagin

No idea if this is legit or not but....

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1885/...425b111e_z.jpg

No, this Trip Advisor review doesn't seem serious (though it is quoted on Russia Today: https://www.rt.com/uk/438393-petrov-...ipal-simonyan/ ), this is explained in this Daily Mirror article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...edral-13240231 .

You can see on this screen capture that the website says "Reviewed Yesterday", but the Skripal poisoning took place on March 4, 2018. This fake review seems to have been removed from the Trip Advisor website now (a search for "Came all the way from Russia to see the spire" gives no result).

[Venom]

Now that made me laugh out loud.

I would hate to laugh about this atrocious act but "Ruslan Boshirov" probably got that info from the second paragraph of the Wikipedia page on Salisbury Cathedral.

[fagin]

Yep, figured it was bollocks, wasn't sure when 'yesterday' was though as it was just a pic posted in another forum.

[GlennB]

'Pure as mountain water' trolling by Russia. Take the mickey, in spades, to demonstrate their contempt. Wow.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by GlennB

'Pure as mountain water' trolling by Russia. Take the mickey, in spades, to demonstrate their contempt. Wow.

I would not go so far. It seems to me Russia has now contributed to the Skripal enquiry (through this public interview of Petrov and Boshirov), like Britain has.

But I am having the impression that Russia Today is kind of doing the job Scotland Yard should do. Britain should now send some detectives to Moscow to do in-depth interviews of these two men, together with their friends, family and work colleagues, customers ... But, with this strong anti-Russian attitude of this Tory government led by Theresa May, is this even conceivable?

[fagin]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would not go so far. It seems to me Russia has now contributed to the Skripal enquiry (through this public interview of Petrov and Boshirov), like Britain has.

But I am having the impression that Russia Today is kind of doing the job Scotland Yard should do. Britain should now send some detectives to Moscow to do in-depth interviews of these two men, together with their friends, family and work colleagues, customers ... But, with this strong anti-Russian attitude of this Tory government led by Theresa May, is this even conceivable?

Hahahahahahaha

That's all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't know how certain the Brits were that these were the killers, but after seeing them both interviewed today on RT, guilt was rather obvious. They were BSing the claim they went to Salisbury as a tourist destination. They didn't have any photos, didn't produce anything but a suspicious story. I would imagine the entry in TripAdvisor was only after it looked like they'd been suspected.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think British have been measured, because massive expulsion of diplomats is neither moderate nor smart (in my opinion).

Expelling "diplomats" is a fairly low key response, actually. The major powers typically maintain a large espionage contingent under the umbrella of their diplomatic presence in a foreign country. Especially with another power.

The host country knows this is going on (they're doing the same thing themselves), and usually know who most of the spies are. Kicking out the spies is just a friendly way of putting the other government on notice, that you'd like to have a serious conversation about the recent shenanigans. And Putin is a bully. The Russian bear won't even start paying attention to you, if you don't give it a sharp smack on the nose.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would not go so far. It seems to me Russia has now contributed to the Skripal enquiry (through this public interview of Petrov and Boshirov), like Britain has.

But I am having the impression that Russia Today is kind of doing the job Scotland Yard should do. Britain should now send some detectives to Moscow to do in-depth interviews of these two men, together with their friends, family and work colleagues, customers ... But, with this strong anti-Russian attitude of this Tory government led by Theresa May, is this even conceivable?

Scotland Yard's job should be promulgating laughable Kremlin propaganda directed at Putin's lame-brained useful idiots? I don't think that's included in their mandate.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Scotland Yard's job should be promulgating laughable Kremlin propaganda directed at Putin's lame-brained useful idiots? I don't think that's included in their mandate.

I don't think Putin and Russia Today have been just telling propaganda. British police has found some things (about the two Russian men, Petrov and Boshirov) and Putin reacted by inviting the two men to speak, to tell their story. I think you can describe this as some form of collaboration.

These men seem sincere to me, but they remain suspects. Russia will probably not extradite them, so British police should go to Moscow and (politely) interrogate them (in my humble opinion). It would perhaps not be a bad thing that some Western police stick their nose in Russian affairs, in order to perhaps improve the quality of democracy in that country, with hopefully positive consequences for world peace, or to perhaps clarify Putin's "innocence".

The BBC has tried to recreate the suspects' walk through Salisbury to see whether their account fits, using CCTV footage from the police (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-45515...ough-salisbury ), but this video seem to be strangely lacking a clear conclusion.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think Putin and Russia Today have been just telling propaganda. British police has found some things (about the two Russian men, Petrov and , and Boshirov) and Putin reacted by inviting the two men to speak, to tell their story. I think you can describe this as some form of collaboration.

Or maybe it's just the type of third rate drivel you'd expect from an agency specifically created to broadcast third rate drivel.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think Putin and Russia Today have been just telling propaganda. British police has found some things (about the two Russian men, Petrov and Boshirov) and Putin reacted by inviting the two men to speak, to tell their story. I think you can describe this as some form of collaboration.

These men seem sincere to me, but they remain suspects. Russia will probably not extradite them, so British police should go to Moscow and (politely) interrogate them (in my humble opinion). It would perhaps not be a bad thing that some Western police stick their nose in Russian affairs, in order to perhaps improve the quality of democracy in that country, with hopefully positive consequences for world peace, or to perhaps clarify Putin's "innocence".

Again Litvinenko case provides appropriate parallels.

Perpetrators gave interviews in Russia proclaiming their innocence, British police went to Moscow to interview them, Russian state protected them and gave them medals.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Russia is not going to honestly co-operate, so there is absolutely no point in British police going through that circus again.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I would not go so far. It seems to me Russia has now contributed to the Skripal enquiry (through this public interview of Petrov and Boshirov), like Britain has.

You can't be that naive, surely?

Originally Posted by Michel H

These men seem sincere to me...

Oh...

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think Putin and Russia Today have been just telling propaganda. British police has found some things (about the two Russian men, Petrov and Boshirov) and Putin reacted by inviting the two men to speak, to tell their story. I think you can describe this as some form of collaboration.

These men seem sincere to me, but they remain suspects. Russia will probably not extradite them, so British police should go to Moscow and (politely) interrogate them (in my humble opinion). It would perhaps not be a bad thing that some Western police stick their nose in Russian affairs, in order to perhaps improve the quality of democracy in that country, with hopefully positive consequences for world peace, or to perhaps clarify Putin's "innocence".

The BBC has tried to recreate the suspects' walk through Salisbury to see whether their account fits, using CCTV footage from the police (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-45515...ough-salisbury ), but this video seem to be strangely lacking a clear conclusion.

They planned a three-day trip, staying two nights in E London, intending to visit Salisbury cathedral? Sincere? That's nuts, as there are cheap hotels and B+Bs in and around Salisbury that would save them a load of time and rail fares, which is important for a flying visit such as this is claimed to have been.

The Russian story is a calculated insult.

[BillC]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I would imagine the entry in TripAdvisor was only after it looked like they'd been suspected.

I would imagine the TripAdvisor was someone else's joke, wouldn't you?

[Rolfe]

I happened to catch the interview with the two men yesterday evening and if I'd had any doubts about them being up to no good these were entirely dispelled by their risible performance. Whether the evidence against them amounts to "beyond reasonable doubt" I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain where the balance of probabilities lies.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by GlennB

They planned a three-day trip, staying two nights in E London, intending to visit Salisbury cathedral? Sincere? That's nuts, as there are cheap hotels and B+Bs in and around Salisbury that would save them a load of time and rail fares, which is important for a flying visit such as this is claimed to have been.

The Russian story is a calculated insult.

Visiting Sailsbury on two consecutive days and spending very little time there on either occasion.

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

That's hilarious!

I mean LiverpoolMiss on BadScience, brilliant..

[Information Analyst]

Mildly amusing that they seemed more bothered about being suspected of being gay, than of being accused of being murderers.

[Henri McPhee]

It's lamentable stupidity. I used to think that Putin would not do such a thing because he is not stupid. I now discover he is stupid.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Visiting Sailsbury on two consecutive days and spending very little time there on either occasion.

What would you suggest they should have done, break into the tourist attractions they intended to visit but which were closed due to bad weather?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's lamentable stupidity. I used to think that Putin would not do such a thing because he is not stupid. I now discover he is stupid.

He is not stupid - he just has no concern about people knowing that he was responsible.

Mafia hits often are messages. It's no good leaving a message if nobody can hear it.

Putin is having his cake and eating it - use lots of exotic poisons and varied ways of killing. Many won't be discovered, except that there will be a range of unexplained deaths. Some will be. As long as some are correctly attributed to him, then all coincidental deaths from his opponents will be suspicious, and his reach is made to seem larger.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by fagin

Try again Henri.

It's what is known technically as international law, which like the principles of international finance most people are totally ignorant about. They are only interested in beer, cigarettes and football and Strictly Come Dancing. I consider it applies to the Skripal case and the Litvinenko case, which is probably why all these sanctions and reprisals are now being applied. This is a website about the matter which is not too highly technical:

http://www.globalization101.org/what...rnational-law/

Quote:

For example, for thousands of years, countries have given protection to ambassadors. As far back as ancient Greece and Rome, ambassadors from another country were not harmed while on their diplomatic missions, even if they represented a country at war with the country they were located in. Throughout history, many countries have publicly stated that they believe that ambassadors should be given this protection. Therefore, today, if a country harmed an ambassador it would be violating customary international law.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

What would you suggest they should have done, break into the tourist attractions they intended to visit but which were closed due to bad weather?

London Evening Standard:

"But, weather forecasts from the weekend show that despite a cold snap gripping the UK around the time of the poisoning, temperatures had risen by March 3.

By the time of their second visit on March 4, the mercury had hit 9C.

To make matters worse, CCTV footage of the pair shows them walking around a rainy Salisbury without a snowflake in sight....

The men also claimed they were forced to call off a visit to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain due to bad weather but tour company Salisbury Reds told the Daily Mail that services “ran as normal” on March 4."

A couple of hardy Russians put off by a bit of slush? Sure...

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's what is known technically as international law, which like the principles of international finance most people are totally ignorant about. They are only interested in beer, cigarettes and football and Strictly Come Dancing. I consider it applies to the Skripal case and the Litvinenko case, which is probably why all these sanctions and reprisals are now being applied. This is a website about the matter which is not too highly technical:

http://www.globalization101.org/what...rnational-law/

I guess this a 'conflict of laws' issue. A specific Russian law allows for the extra-judicial extra-territorial execution of persons who insult Putin; English law does not allow agents of the Russian state to carry out what is a legal act under Russian law in England. Even if an extradition treaty existed, since what happened is not a crime in Russia, there would be no extradition.

[Planigale]

Russian agents arrested attempting to break into to the Swiss lab carrying out the independent analysis on behalf of the OPCW.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45522614
I wonder why Russian agents would want to break into this laboratory after had received specimens from Salisbury, presumably it was just something people want to visit when going to switzerland and one might need to break in if it is closed due to bad weather?

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

"...To make matters worse, CCTV footage of the pair shows them walking around a rainy Salisbury without a snowflake in sight..."

Apart from the two Russians!

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's lamentable stupidity. I used to think that Putin would not do such a thing because he is not stupid. I now discover he is stupid.

Putin's decades long assassination campaign against critics, rivals and journalists has helped him and his inner circle become massively wealthy and powerful, while the tripe produced by his propaganda arsenal is instantly accepted as fact by his influential western groupies.

What "lamentable stupidity"?

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Mildly amusing that they seemed more bothered about being suspected of being gay, than of being accused of being murderers.

In Russia being gay is more disreputable than being a murderer. At least a murderer can be a man!

[Arcade22]

Note that if you want to at least try to have some plausible deniability whatsoever then I'd suggest documenting your visits to prominent landmarks and popular attractions.

Pretending to be a tourist is more believable if you behave at least a little bit like a tourist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Michel H

...
These men seem sincere to me, ....

That they went to Salisbury for sightseeing?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Michel H

...
The BBC has tried to recreate the suspects' walk through Salisbury to see whether their account fits, using CCTV footage from the police (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-45515...ough-salisbury ), but this video seem to be strangely lacking a clear conclusion.

Right, they claimed they walked to the cathedral, but CC cameras caught them very close to the victim's house and a very long way in the opposite direction from the cathedral. In addition, it showed them returning to the train station and there's no images of them anywhere near the cathedral.

What kind of clear conclusion were you expecting?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BillC

I would imagine the TripAdvisor was someone else's joke, wouldn't you?

I wouldn't rule that out or be surprised if it were a Poe. I can be sarcasm-challenged from time to time.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I wouldn't rule that out or be surprised if it were a Poe. I can be sarcasm-challenged from time to time.

I think it's someone else playing a joke because the image they used in their profile, and is visible in the the review, is the same as the British Police mugshot.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I think it's someone else playing a joke because the image they used in their profile, and is visible in the the review, is the same as the British Police mugshot.

It would have been funnier if the person writing it used more "Boris and Natasha" syntax. "You get moose, I get squirrel".

[jimbob]

Again from badscience

Originally Posted by woodchopper1

Quote:

Aeroflot’s passenger manifest, reviewed by Bellingcat and The Insider, discredits Petrov and Boshirov’s claims, made in the RT interview, that they had been planning their visit to Salisbury for a long time. The manifest records the times of booking, check-in, and boarding of each passenger. In the case of the two suspects, they made their initial booking – and checked in online – at 20:00 GMT (22:00 Moscow time) on 1 March 2018, the night before their short trip to London and Salisbury.
[...]

Bellingcat and The Insider have reviewed original records from the central Russian passport and residential registration database and have identified the passport files belonging to the two suspects.

The person using the name Alexander Petrov does in fact have a passport file, under the name Alexander Yevgenievich Petrov, born on 13 July 1979 in Kotlas, a small town in northern Russia. The birth date coincides with that of the Alexander Petrov who flew on Aeroflot flight SU2588 on 2 March 2018, as seen in the passenger manifest reviewed by Bellingcat.

This person’s passport photo matches the photos released by the UK authorities and the face of the person calling himself Alexander Petrov in the RT interview.

Mr. Petrov’s passport file contains peculiarities that are not found in any other passport file reviewed by Bellingcat and The Insider in this and prior investigations.

Born in 2009?
First, this person’s file lacks any history of address registrations or previous identification documents issued prior to 2009. A standard passport file – such as the files of the other 3 Russian citizens bearing the name Alexander Petrov and born on 13 July 1979, all of which were reviewed by Bellingcat and the Insider before identifying the person of interest – contain a history of previous, expired ID documents, international passports issued to the person (both expired and current), as well as previous address registrations. The first – and only – Russian ID document listed for Mr. Petrov under his file is an internal passport (mandatory for Russian citizens over the age of 14) issued on 26 November 2009, and valid until today. The passport file contains a field called “reason for issue of document”, which typically lists the previous (expired) ID document that the current one substitutes. In Mr. Petrov’s case, the reason for issuance of the new passport is listed simply as “Unsuitable for usage”, a marking typically used when a previous passport has been damaged or found to contain invalid data. A hand-written note in Petrov’s file makes a reference to a pre-existing national passport issued in St. Petersburg in 1999. However, no record of such a passport number exists in the central passport database.

“Do not provide any information”
Alexander Petrov’s passport dossier is marked with a stamp containing the instruction “Do not provide any information”. This stamp does not exist in standard civilian passport files. A source working in the Russian police force who regularly works with the central database confirmed to Bellingcat and The Insider that they have never seen such a stamp on any passport form in their career. That source surmised that this marking reserved for operatives of the state under deep cover.

Adding additional credence to the hypothesis that Alexander Petrov’s persona is a cover identity comes from another page in his passport file, which is reserved for input of biographical data. In Mr. Petrov’s case, this page is left blank, and in addition to the same stamp “Do not provide information”, a hand-written note is added with the text “There is a letter. S.S.”. Per the same source interviewed for this story, S.S. is a common abbreviation for “sovershenno sekretno”, Russian for “top secret”.

Another clue pointing to the non-civilian status of Mr. Petrov is the absence from his passport file of any information about his international passport, which he used to travel to the United Kingdom. The passport number is listed in the Aeroflot passenger manifest reviewed by Bellingcat. However, the passport file shows no international passport belonging to Alexander Petrov, in contrast with regular practice – under which the file contains a list of all government-issued ID documents, both national and international passports, expired and currently valid.

The Russian media outlet Fontanka has previously published information on Boshirov and Petrov’s passport files, indicating that they were separated by only 3 digits (-1294 and -1297), meaning that they were issued at nearly the same time. Bellingcat and The Insider also reviewed passport data for the other two individuals to whom those two passports were issued, with the the passport numbers ending in -1295 and -1296. These two individuals also had peculiar passport dossiers, with incomplete or time-capped data, similar to Alexander Petrov’s passport file. Additionally, Fontanka noted that Petrov and Boshirov bought two separate return flights back to Moscow on March 4. Additional information on these findings, along with other discoveries related to Boshirov and Petrov, will be published on Bellingcat’s site next week.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-a...rity-services/

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Right, they claimed they walked to the cathedral, but CC cameras caught them very close to the victim's house and a very long way in the opposite direction from the cathedral. In addition, it showed them returning to the train station and there's no images of them anywhere near the cathedral.

What kind of clear conclusion were you expecting?

I understand this BBC video better now, this article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...oes-not-add-up helps to understand objections to Boshirov and Petrov's account of their trip (this link: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...flaws-13242758 is of interest too).

However, when you say "a very long way in the opposite direction", this very long way" is actually (only) 0.8 miles according to Google Maps, this is the distance between the Salisbury Railway Station and the Shell gas (or petrol) station 133 Wilton Road, where they were spotted, this does not seem that huge to me. Nevertheless, why did they not go to the cathedral on their first trip to Salisbury? Why did they go straight towards the Skripal home, which located North West of the station, and not to the cathedral (which is South East) on their second trip? In addition, traces of the poison Novichok were apparently found in their hotel room.

According to Kovalev (a Russian journalist), Putin may not have authorized the attack against Sergey and Yulia Skripal: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ects-interview

Perhaps he ordered the Litvinenko assassination, but not the attack against the Skripals. If this is true, he might be more open to a serious investigation in Russia - it might be in his interest. There is a lot which is still unknown about these two suspects, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov. A serious investigation might (perhaps) reveal some big surprises. For example, have they been paid by the Russian State recently?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I understand this BBC video better now, this article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...oes-not-add-up helps to understand objections to Boshirov and Petrov's account of their trip (this link: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...flaws-13242758 is of interest too).

However, when you say "a very long way in the opposite direction", this very long way" is actually (only) 0.8 miles according to Google Maps, this is the distance between the Salisbury Railway Station and the Shell gas (or petrol) station 133 Wilton Road, where they were spotted, this does not seem that huge to me. Nevertheless, why did they not go to the cathedral on their first trip to Salisbury? Why did they go straight towards the Skripal home, which located North West of the station, and not to the cathedral (which is South East) on their second trip? In addition, traces of the poison Novichok were apparently found in their hotel room.

According to Kovalev (a Russian journalist), Putin may not have authorized the attack against Sergey and Yulia Skripal: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ects-interview

Perhaps he ordered the Litvinenko assassination, but not the attack against the Skripals. If this is true, he might be more open to a serious investigation in Russia - it might be in his interest. There is a lot which is still unknown about these two suspects, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov. A serious investigation might (perhaps) reveal some big surprises. For example, have they been paid by the Russian State recently?

Are you still trying to get us to believe these two clowns were tourists?

As for "very long way", they were on foot, they went toward the Skripal's house. The cathedral was the other way. Watch the video, it's a long way for two men on foot that were intending to see the tourist sights.