In
Part 1 of this series, I stated why I believe the official narrative on the Skripal case does not appear to hold water. Firstly, the nerve agent A-234 (Novichok)
can and has been produced outside Russia, in a number of places, thus disproving the claim that it
must have come from Russia. Secondly, the fact that the
effects experienced by the Skripals - four hours of moving freely around Salisbury, followed by no irreparable damage -
do not remotely fit what the scientific literature says about that substance - almost instantaneous death or a short life with irreparable damage to the central nervous system -, makes it highly unlikely that they were indeed poisoned by it. Indeed, the burden of proof is on those making the claims to show how and why the scientific literature was wrong.
Then in
Part 2, I mentioned four aspects of the case, which are undoubtedly significant, but which seem to have been ignored or forgotten. I ended that piece by saying that I hoped to discuss what I consider to be an even bigger aspect of the case; something that may well begin to join some dots together.
And this is what I intend to do in this piece. However, before I do, I should start by saying that what I am about to say is speculative. That is not to say that it is not
based on facts. It is. It is
based on witness testimony that appeared very early on in the case - three days after the poisoning - and which I deem to be credible since it appeared before the case became completely politicised, which is sadly what subsequently happened. I am then using that testimony to construct what I consider to be the best explanation for what the witness described. And so it is very much a theory. One based on facts, but a theory nevertheless. As such it is of course open to challenge.
Comment: