Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

Rroff said:
What is so unusual about it? if there had been 50 people its quite like say 40 of them would have exhibited the exact same symptoms and timescales while the other 10 were widely different.
Click to expand...

What's unusual is that both people in one incident decided to "break" the "rarely any consistency" argument. And with a (allegedly delayed) timing so uncanny, that neither of them could call for help. That same uncanny timing was surprisingly absent in the case of Dawn and Charlie.

Plus let's not forget one very important detail - the "delayed action nerve agent" argument. Dawn Sturgess succumbed immediately.
 
Nasher said:
If you used a story this shakey in a trial you'd be found guilty pretty quickly. The prosecutor would have a field day.

If this was two accused murderers giving their account to a Russian court, do you seriously think they would let them off? It's ridiculous that they think the rest of the world is going to believe them.

They blew it right from the go. Russia claimed they were never there to start with. The first thing these guys did was confirm they WERE there. Derp.
Click to expand...

Given plenty of Russian tourists (actual tourists) will visit the UK and include Salisbury among places to visit, who exactly did Russia say "wasn't there" please? Did they say "Boshirov and Petrov" weren't there? Or was it just some half-cocked attempts by some media to track down who these people were, and they got the wrong ones, who said they weren't there? Putin himself confirmed they found the actual men in question a day before the interview, where the men confirmed their presence in Salisbury, so help me out with what you mean.
 
Danny75 said:
What's unusual is that both people in one incident decided to "break" the "rarely any consistency" argument. And with a (allegedly delayed) timing so uncanny, that neither of them could call for help. That same uncanny timing was surprisingly absent in the case of Dawn and Charlie.

Plus let's not forget one very important detail - the "delayed action nerve agent" argument. Dawn Sturgess succumbed immediately.
Click to expand...

False equivalence. You're trying to compare situations that nobody really knows exact specifics about and trying to suggest the outcome of one rules out the outcome of the other.

In the case of dawn, it was said she sprayed it directly on herself, she very likely inhaled it.
 
Danny75 said:
What's unusual is that both people in one incident decided to "break" the "rarely any consistency" argument. And with a (allegedly delayed) timing so uncanny, that neither of them could call for help. That same uncanny timing was surprisingly absent in the case of Dawn and Charlie.

Plus let's not forget one very important detail - the "delayed action nerve agent" argument. Dawn Sturgess succumbed immediately.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are getting it - chemical weapons are designed to have a typical average response which most people exposed to them beyond a certain design threshold will exhibit but that doesn't mean it has that impact in every single case and the dose and means of exposure can be very different even between two people exposed inside close proximity.

It is completely normal with poisons, toxins, chemical weapons whatever to have a range of people who are affected the same and within the same time scale and a range of people that exhibit very varied symptoms and timescales.

When I was a lab assistant I saw for instance a carbon monoxide incident where most people exposed became very sick very quickly while one guy was seemingly completely unaffected and others were mild to moderately affected at the time but became severely ill hours later.
 
Or maybe they received different doses? Or contacted on different parts of the body? Different levels of liver function? Different trans-dermal permissivity due to skin composition?

We could speculate all day. How could anyone recognise the 'truth' if they somehow were presented with it?
 
There are chemical weapons experts sceptical of that claim, including Chris Busby, who's been visited by police in what's turning out to be a very strange story as it stands so far:

Chemical weapons expert arrested after police 'taken ill' at Devon home - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20..._source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

We'll have to agree to disagree on how odd or otherwise those facts are. I'm sure other chemical weapons experts will say the opposite, including Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who is a happy chappy at seeing how Avon Protections' business is booming (he's a director), and doesn't miss a single opportunity to bash Russia and to urge the UK to also stockpile chemical weapons such as novichok "cause Russia has it", "taboo has been lifted on chemical weapons", "CW has been good for us (Avon Protections)".

Re: inhaling. Here's the thing - if Charlie's story is true, he'd have inhaled it too. You don't give your loved one perfume and then make a quick exit from the room and refuse to smell it. And the second thing is we are told the nerve agent was applied in gel form on the door handle. But now in the Amesbury case, it's become a spray.

And something else - the "perfume bottle" story was planted in the media before the police actually found a perfume bottle, just sitting there on the kitchen counter. Neil Basu confirmed that the perfume bottle was found on July 11th, 11 days on from the beginning of the search of Rowley's house. Newspapers had been full of stories concerning perfume bottles in the days before.

EDIT - not only would Charlie have inhaled it when Dawn applied it. He would also have inhaled a ton of it, prior to that, when he spilled the contents all over his hands (before washing it off).

 
Last edited:
Danny75 said:
Given plenty of Russian tourists (actual tourists) will visit the UK and include Salisbury among places to visit, who exactly did Russia say "wasn't there" please? Did they say "Boshirov and Petrov" weren't there? Or was it just some half-cocked attempts by some media to track down who these people were, and they got the wrong ones, who said they weren't there? Putin himself confirmed they found the actual men in question a day before the interview, where the men confirmed their presence in Salisbury, so help me out with what you mean.
Click to expand...

Legit tourists from Russia wouldn't say for 1 day and go home for a start, they wouldn't usually come in winter either. Not to somewhere like Salisbury. Pretty sure they would have at least some holiday snaps etc as well lol

Also why did they leave their luggage behind and travel using fake names? Why did they walk near the Skripals house, which is a housing estate miles from any kind of attraction? When I go abroad I know I don't visit housing estates.
 
Nasher said:
Legit tourists from Russia wouldn't say for 1 day and go home for a start, they wouldn't usually come in winter either. Not to somewhere like Salisbury lol

Also why did they leave their luggage behind?
Click to expand...

You haven't helped me out with what I asked. And I haven't argued they're legit tourists.

Re: luggage, your guess as good as mine. No idea.
 
Danny75 said:
You haven't helped me out with what I asked. And I haven't argued they're legit tourists.

Re: luggage, your guess as good as mine. No idea.
Click to expand...

Russia initially said "the names don't mean anything to them". Even though they came in and out on a Russian flight directly from Russia, using Russian passports...
 
Nasher said:
Russia initially said "the names don't mean anything to them". Even though they came in and out on a Russian flight directly from Russia, using Russian passports...
Click to expand...

If you mean Zakharova (spokeswoman for Russian FM), I watched her statements and the translation read: "the names and photos don't mean anything to us, as of now". Either way, regardless of translation, I don't think it's the case, as you previously alleged, that Russia stated the men weren't there. It's possible you read British (or other) media who were reporting on another Petrov, who said he wasn't there.

But anyway, that being hopefully cleared up, was Zakharova feigning ignorance? Sure, possibly. Or she didn't immediately know, and someone decided best not to inform her. At that point they wouldn't have time to be briefed on how to react, so I'd imagine spokespeople like herself were buying time before meeting to agree on the way forward.
 
How on earth would you know he inhaled it, he may not have even been in the same room. He may of given it then popped off for a #### for all we know.

People aren't linear, living on scripted rails. Wtf knows how he gave it to her.
 
LOAM said:
How on earth would you know he inhaled it, he may not have even been in the same room. He may of given it then popped off for a #### for all we know.

People aren't linear, living on scripted rails. Wtf knows how he gave it to her.
Click to expand...

Not only would such an action be very odd, plus he described seeing her use it, maybe he watched from a spy-hole in the painting over by the sofa, yeah?

Also seems you missed my earlier edit:


Danny75 said:

EDIT - not only would Charlie have inhaled it when Dawn applied it. He would also have inhaled a ton of it, prior to that, when he spilled the contents all over his hands (before washing it off).
Click to expand...

What say you now? How about "How on earth would I know he wasn't wearing a gas mask when he spilled it?"
 
I struggle to understand how anyone, after seeing the RT interview, can even remotely think that it wasn't the Russians.
 
the laughable russian defence is basically a 'yeah we did it, and we came up with this stupid story and there's not a damn thing you can do about it'.
Its the most obvious admission of guilt i have ever seen a state make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom