Litvinenko Murder Saga Continues
By Sean at 3 April, 2008, 12:33 pm
The recent flurry in the comments section over the polonium poisoning of Aleksandr Litvinenko has inspired me to revisit the issue. When I last left the case, it was reveled that Litvinenko was on retainer with MI6. Andrei Lugovoi, Britain’s chief suspect in the crime, was listed as a Duma candidate on the LDPR ticket. Now Deputy Lugovoi’s goal was to get the immunity that comes with the seat. Lugovoi didn’t need it. The Russian Constitution prohibits extradition, and the Russians weren’t looking like their they were going to fold anyway.
Nevertheless, Lugovoi was clearly looking for a little extra krysha in case some behind the scenes deal was hammered out. Zhirinovskii’s LDPR was a good pick. The case is the kinda thing the flamboyant Zhirik loves, and that is despite the fact the LDPR (and all major Russian political parties) are known to sell their Duma seats to the highest bidder. Whether Lugovoi dolled out cash for the privilege of getting one of the forty coveted LDPR seats is unknown. It’s likely that adding Lugovoi to the ticket was a PR move on Zhirik’s part. Not to mention a way to stick it to the Brits.
Here we are in April 2008 and the fascination with the Litvinenko case doesn’t seem to be going away. There is no real reason why it should. The case is just flat out weird. And it’s getting weirder. On April 1, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution urging the Kremlin to aid the British in their investigation. House Resolution 154, authored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethtinen (R, FL-18th). The resolution is fitting for an April Fool’s joke. With a sliding economy, a war seemingly without end, and litany of other domestic issues, one would think the House has something better to do. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to think so.
Litvinenko’s wife Marina is continuing her efforts to get her husband’s murder solved. And who could blame her given the circumstances and the aftermath of her husband’s death. In a plea published in the London Times, Mrs. Litvinenko is doubtful Lugovoi will ever be extradited, saying “I cannot wait for another ten years for a slim chance that their approach would bear fruit.” Ten years? Try never. She understands this as much as anyone else and instead of urging the British government to issue yet another extradition request, she rather have them open the investigation to the public. “If I cannot get justice,” she writes, “then at least I need the full truth.”
Perhaps. I’m increasingly convinced that the “full truth” will never be revealed in this case. Simply because the “truth” became so blackened by both the British and the Russians as soon as the case became a diplomatic fiasco. So much of the available information has been subject to what Nick Davies calls “flat earth news” i.e. “A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true – even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”
“Flat earth news” aptly describes the Litvinenko case. The question of who killed him is so mired in duel of diplomatic dick swinging between the “rule of law” British versus shadowy “elements of the Russian government” (the British version) and a conniving Boris Berezovsky and an “imperialist” Britain using the Litvinenko case in a broader effort to undermine Russian sovereignty (the Russian version). Finally, the biggest flat earth notion of all is the canonization of Litvinenko as some sort of dissident martyr. A LexisNexis search for use of “Litvinenko” and “dissident” in the same sentence reveals 597 stories. Even more interesting is that the two words appear only in five articles before his poisoning in November 2006.
Creeping from the mire is a theory that Litvinenko was poisoned by accidentally coming into contact with or being personally involved in a polonium smuggling ring. This is the line Edward Jay Epstein is peddling his article “The Specter that Haunts the Death of Litvinenko” in the New York Sun. Granted, the Sun is, as Marina Litvinenko called it, “a third rate paper.” But Epstein has made the Litvinenko Case a pet project, doing more investigation into it than any other Western journalist. You can find a his thoughts on the case on his blog. The question then is if Epstein’s investigation is so serious and thorough then why publish it in a proto-tabloid like the Sun? I think the answer is simple. Epstein’s take on the Litvinenko Case completely diverges from the accepted narrative you find in every paper that has covered the story. Perhaps, he suggests, the earth isn’t as flat as we think.
Epstein’s article is worth a read. Not so much because he has any concrete evidence linking Litvinenko’s murder to polonium smuggling. In fact, his evidence is no more solid that any other journalists’ account. The article’s value is in his questioning of the accepted and unchallenged assumptions about the British investigation, the chain of events, Litvinenko’s movement around London, the role of Berezovsky, and why no one seems to be concerned about finding out where exactly the polonium came from, especially given the global concern for possible nuclear terrorism. The British criminal indictment of Andrei Lugovoi has obscured the very question of nuclear terrorism. Epstein writes,
In terms of a public relations tactic, it resulted in a brilliant success by putting the blame on Russian stonewalling for the failure to solve the mystery. What it obscured is the elephant-in-the-room that haunts the case: the fact that a crucial component for building an early-stage nuke was smuggled into London in 2006. Was it brought in merely as a murder weapon or as part of a transaction on the international arms market?
This leads him to his own hypothesis:
After considering all the evidence, my hypothesis is that Litvinenko came in contact with a Polonium-210 smuggling operation and was, either wittingly or unwittingly, exposed to it. Litvinenko had been a person of interest to the intelligence services of many countries, including Britain’s MI-6, Russia’s FSB, America’s CIA (which rejected his offer to defect in 2000), and Italy’s SISMI, which was monitoring his phone conversations.
His murky operations, whatever their purpose, involved his seeking contacts in one of the most lawless areas in the former Soviet Union, the Pankisi Gorge, which had become a center for arms smuggling. He had also dealt with people accused of everything from money laundering to trafficking in nuclear components. These activities may have brought him, or his associates, in contact with a sample of Polonium-210, which then, either by accident or by design, contaminated and killed him.
To unlock the mystery, Britain must make available its secret evidence, including the autopsy report, the comprehensive list of places in which radiation was detected, and the surveillance reports of Litvinenko and his associates. If Britain considers it too sensitive for public release, it should be turned over to an international commission of inquiry. The stakes are too high here to leave unresolved the mystery of the smuggled Polonium-210.
The Russian media gleefully jumped all over Epstein’s article. Andrei Lugovoi quickly voiced his agreement with Epstein’s finding in a press conference. “I was pleasantly surprised that a foreign journalist carried out the first independent investigation into the “Litvinenko Case” and made, in my view, the correct conclusions.”
Who knows whether Epstein is right or wrong, or I should say, no more right or wrong than anyone else. But at least he’s stirring the proverbial pot.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I haven’t heard about Epstein and his article till yesterday… what a shame
Good piece Sean. And good idea to update things.
Ivanov – re the medical assessment that Litvinenko died as a result of radiation poisoning from polonium 210: That was not a legal assessment and seek indicate the source or anything else that you’ve mentioned.
As it happens, I’ve been as skeptical as anyone could be about the alleged circumstances. But I think skepticism about the purely medical verdict is missplaced. In a matter so lacking in confirmed fact, I’m happy there is one that sensible people can agree on.
It’s strange (or funny?) – but the “smoking gun” just in front of us and yet – nobody sees it…
“Litvinenko’s wife Marina is continuing her efforts to get her husband’s murder solved.”
There never was the slightest reason to suppose that Putin and the Russian government had anything to do with the death of Litvinenko. There was little to suggest it was a murder.
There has however been a determined campaign in the media to blacken the uncooperative Putin. We know that the Nato powers notably the US spend a great deal of money suborning the media. This and other incidents give us a clue as to who the lucky beneficiaries are.
The statements of the British Crown prosecution service should be treated with the greatest suspicion. The British Civil Service no longer has the tradition of independance from government that was once its strength.
What Mrs Litvinenko says may be the result of ignorance or she may be in the position of owing her financial survival to people with an agenda.
There was little to suggest it was a murder.
…or accident, or suicide, I would add.
Sean – Good idea adding anti-spam. Hope it helps.
“…or accident, or suicide, I would add. ”
I think the idea he killed himself as some kind of mad scheme to get Putin and go out in a blaze of glory — while not totally impossible — would hold more water if he hadn’t accused Scaramella (the alleged arms dealer, cough cough).
Maybe Litvinenko, desperate to redeem himself in the eyes of the Capo, asked Scaramella to score him something big. I can imagine Scaramella hemming and hawing, Litvinenko’s continued entreaties, and then Scaramella consenting to meet. “Listen Sasha, this is dangerous stuff! You’ve got to be careful with it.” “Yeah yeah yeah, I’m not an idiot. Hand me the bag already.”
Scaramella has always been a trader in “info” and rumors (most of the time for his right wing patrons linked with the SISMI). He is also a known scam and a crook. But I don’t believe he could have pulled out anything that big. No one with actual polonium to sell would have entrusted it to such a clown.
I dunno Alphast. I think you may be giving these people too much credit.
It’s strange (or funny?) – but the “smoking gun” just in front of us and yet – nobody sees it…
Could you please be more explicit?
Who is US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethtinen, the sponsor of the House Resolution on Litvinenko?
She is Cuban-born staunch Republican, except a champion of Gay-Lesbian rights.
There is a blog “Eye on Ileana”, that says:
- Ileana Hates the Environment
- Ileana Hates Raul
- Ileana Hates America, Florida, Loves Eternal War.
http://eyeonileana.blogspot.com/
Ileana is supported by:
1 United Parcel Service $ 10,250
2 American Bankers Assn $ 10,000
2 US India PAC $ 10,000
2 Carpenters & Joiners Union $ 10,000
5 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $ 7,500
So there you have it.
Although anyone supported by ‘National Beer’ can’t be completely bad, can one?
Also, Ileana’s husband name is Lehtinen, so there might be some Belo-Finn conspiracy behind all this.
Never heard of Belo-Finns? My point, exactly!
Here they are – “the smoking guns” **
1. Litvinenko, Berezovskiy, Goldfarb – all are know as critics of Kremlin, right? But who is most critical critic among them? Who is in the position to finance and manage critical job? I let readers to make their choice …
2. All three critics had rather closed circle of their contacts as they had solid reason to believe that Kremlin would like to shut their critic down. They do their best to contact trusted only “friends”.
3. Lugovoy. He is a long trusted “friend” of all these three critics. Once he spent time in jail by helping Berezovskiy in rather specific matter. He was providing security service to BAB’s daughter. As such Lugovoy had free access to all three critics as he had “business” with them.
AND WHAT DID WE SEE?
Kremlin hired its best “agent” to shut down secondary target? And got itself into political mud?
It might be OK for new Bond’s comics. But it’s time, Братишки, to leave kindergarten and enter real world
PS.
One more “gun” – later
**this is short version – no detail, no rumors, no official/private announcements, just the subjet: who got the jackpot.
Ok, let’s say that Litvinenko was murdered by Gorlum….oops, by Kremlin
Or that he kept his polonium in the kitchen and one day mixed it with the sugar jar.
What would you do if you were his best “friend” and boss?
Would you be somewhat concerned if you friend got the bullet in the head when your were walking together? Maybe you were the target and bad guys just missed?
Would you be somewhat concerned if you find out that your friend blew himself up because he was carrying 1 kilo of explosives all the time (and you often walk together)?
But I never heard that BAB was really concern about either been a missed primary target or having friend who was messing up with radioactive sugar.
That’s very strange to me. The only rational explanation – he knew that he was not the target neither Litvinenko eat polonium by mistake.
PS. There are millions of possible conspiracy versions. In particular for the people who spent too much time with the comics and 007 serials. I have more boring background and start from simple things.
fn
“Sean – Good idea adding anti-spam. Hope it helps.”
Yeah, soon we’ll find out who are bots and who are humans. Bots should have some difficulties in writing comments – so let’s see who will write less than usual
Oh my God. I knew UPS must be involved somehow.
Is this hybrid theory possible? Yes, Mr L was involved in smuggling polonium. And, yes, the Kremlin did him in, for that very reason. A kind of a Russian cease & desist order directed to everybody else involved in that particular enterprise.
Were this to turn out to be the fact, I don’t think I’d be the only one in the West to raise a glass to Mr Putin’s health.
Ivanov, you claimed that there is a smoking gun in front of us and then it turns out that your smoking gun is simply another round of speculation we all heard about.
The fact is that we don’t know whether Litvinenko’s death was an accident or a murder. And if it was murder, we don’t know who killed him–we don’t know who either directly or implicitly ordered his death.
In any event, in the real world even smart people mess up and make clumsy mistakes. The White House, the CIA, the Pentagon has had its share of embarrassing incompetence. And, of course, the same applies to the Kremlin, the FSB, the Russian and Chechen mafias, the so-called oligarchs and so on.
Although not right on point, I remember that MAB once wrote that the world is divided into those who tend to believe that a given bad situation is the result of an elaborate conspiracy and those who tend to believe that is the result of a cock-up. Like her, I believe that in the real world cock-ups are much more prevalent than conspiracies.
“But I never heard that BAB was really concern about either been a missed primary target or having friend who was messing up with radioactive sugar.”
That’s it? That’s your “evidence”? You’re right — you really do go for “simple” explanations.
How would you have heard that BAB was concerned, assuming he was? You think he would have issued a press release? Imagine he WAS concerned. Presumably that would prove he’s innocent. It would also mean he didn’t know what had made Litvinenko sick. So — why would he be concerned?
Ridiculous.
“I remember that MAB once wrote that the world is divided into those who tend to believe that a given bad situation is the result of an elaborate conspiracy and those who tend to believe that is the result of a cock-up. Like her, I believe that in the real world cock-ups are much more prevalent than conspiracies.”
I once asked a top civil service about this division between the cock up and the conspiracy theories and he said that in his experience both happened together. The cock up came first and then the conspiracy to hide it.
“Ivanov, you claimed that there is a smoking gun in front of us and then it turns out that your smoking gun is simply another round of speculation we all heard about.”
Kolya, do you expect me to place a link to youtube video with CCTV footage showing BAB signing cheque to Litvinenko’s killer?
My point was to remove all mass media BS from the case and look at bare facts. And be reasonable.
If Kremlin got Lugovoy – why waste such a tool for removing second …no… fifth rate target?
Why BAB is sure sure that he wasn’t the target nor in the danger? Have you read his “interview” with Russian investigator?
And don’t forget second most likely suspects – space ninja (thanks Chris for the link)
Rise the hand those who read BAB’s “interview” with Russian investigator, please.
PS. “The cock up came first and then the conspiracy to hide it.”
I would tend to agree with this top civil service, robert.
Space Ninja only work in space. This would have had to be the Thames River Ninja Clan.
Thanks for corrections, Chris.
Of course it’s River Clan…
Rise the hand those who read BAB’s “interview” with Russian investigator, please.
I did. Why do you ask?
because fn asked
“How would you have heard that BAB was concerned, assuming he was?”
About conspiracies and cock-ups: yes, it’ true that after a cock-up there is often an attempt to cover it up. And this usually becomes a much more damaging scandal than the initial cock-up. That’s not the sort of thing I had in mind, though. I was referring to the tendency of many people to believe that certain bad situations were a result of a conspiracies instead of cock-ups. I’m one of those who thinks that cock-ups (even high level ones) are much more common than conspiracies. Ockham’s razor should be applied to all these cases. This does not mean that conspiracies do not not exist. Sometimes the more parsimonious explanations are incorrect, but most of the time they are not. Some people, though, have a weakness for believing in conspiracies. All cultures have a certain segment of the population that tends to believe in conspiracy theories, but it seems that in some cultures (or in certain segments of society) they are much more prevalent.
Kolya! Did you read BAB’s interview I mentioned?
ivanov,
Could you please be more specific? What exactly is it in BAB’s interview that you believe proves your point? And what exactly is your point?
db.
Have you noticed any concern of BAB in the interview?
To refresh your mind. Some stories from the past
“September 14, 2003
A district judge ruled that Mr Berezovsky would not face extradition from Britain to Russia on fraud charges.
The ruling came two days after it emerged that Mr Berezovsky had been granted political asylum in the UK.
Although Russia refused to drop an extradition request against the tycoon in court on Friday, District Judge Timothy Workman said there was no purpose in proceeding with it.
He then discharged the case at London’s Bow Street Magistrates Court.
Speaking for Mr Berezovsky, barrister Alun Jones called he said. “We want finality at the end of these proceedings.”
Representing the Russian Government, James Lewis of the Crown Prosecution Service accepted that, given Mr Berezovsky had been granted political asylum, the issue of his extradition to Russia “had become rather academic”.
But he said he had received no explanation from British Home Secretary David Blunkett, and that the Russian Federation was seeking to challenge Mr Blunkett’s decision.”
“The court was told that the Russian Federation was plotting to murder Mr Berezovsky.
Clare Montgomery, representing Dubov, said: “We have good reason to believe that organs of the Russian state want to murder Mr Berezovsky.”
She said Dubov, who was also sought for extradition and was claiming political asylum in the UK, could be used as a “whipping boy” to get at Mr Berezovsky.
…..
Mr Berezovsky had claimed throughout the case that the charges were politically motivated and that his life would be in danger if he were returned to Russia.
….
Speaking outside the court, Andrew Stephenson, solicitor for both Russians, said there were continued concerns for Mr Berezovsky’s security.
However, he said he was pleased the case for extradition to Russia had been discharged.”
from interview
“Б.: Я познакомился с господином Луговым в Москве. В начале 90-х годов, может быть, в 1992-93-94. Он был мне представлен Егором Гайдаром… Гайдар представил мне его как очень профессионального охранника. И Луговой осуществлял охрану принадлежащих мне компаний. Позже он сосредоточился на работе одной из компаний – это компания ОРТ, ведущий телевизионный канал России. Мы продолжали с ним взаимодействовать. Никогда у нас не было никакого совместного бизнеса, но я пользовался услугами его охранной компании, которую он создал, вплоть до последнего времени, когда я просил его осенью прошлого года помочь с охраной моей дочери, которая временно проживала с Санкт-Петербурге. Я хочу еще подчеркнуть одну важную вещь: что я очень верил Луговому, постольку поскольку он оказался в тюрьме по обвинению в помощи моему другу, который сидел тоже в то время в тюрьме. Я уже упоминал его: это Николай Глушков, тот самый, которого пытался Абрамович и Путин обменять на акции ОРТ. И Луговой был обвинен в попытке организации побега из тюрьмы моего друга Глушкова. Насколько мне известно, никакой попытки побега не было, была провокация. Но тем не мене, Луговой был осужден. И это, конечно, увеличивало сильно мое доверие. “
BAB
“Это был просто общий разговор. Ну и тоже он сказал, что собирается потом пойти на футбол, который как раз состоится 1 ноября. И насколько я помню, билеты, которые вот на этот матч нужны были, он получал в моем офисе. ”
“К.: Егор Шуппе знаком с Луговым и Ковтуном?
Б.: Я считаю, что да. По крайней мере, я знаю, что именно Егор помогал Луговому с приобретением билетов на этот футбольный матч.”
Egor – husband of the BAB’s daughter Katya. So BAB’s man arranged ticket and Lugovoy MUST visited BAB’s office to pick them up. Strange way for Russian millionaire to buy football tickets.
Or just a simple trick to get Lugovoy into the BAB’s office?
К.: В какой он был больнице, когда вы его впервые увидели?
BAB.: Это была первая больница, Барнет. Это на севере Лондона.
К.: Вы знаете, каким был его первый диагноз?
BAB.: Да, я очень внимательно следил за этим. Действительно, в начале диагностировалось как желудочно-кишечное заболевание. И на то были основания постольку, поскольку был один из редких случаев появления бактерии в результате приема антибиотиков. Затем, когда стало ясно, что это не желудочно-кишечное заболевание, а нечто более серьезное, был привлечен специалист по таким необычным отравлениям. Это тот же самый эксперт, который диагностировал отравление Ющенко, президента Украины, диоксином. И он пришел к заключению, что это отравление таллием.”
Try to guess who paid cheques to that expert
And now about smoking polonium.
BAB in his “interview” claimed that he knew – it was polonium from Russia.
Russian investigator tried to ask BAB for some kind of evidence or any other information to support that claim. And BAB was ready to but… was stopped PROHIBITED by the guy from Skotland Yard
О.: Вопрос еще один можно? Господин Березовский пришел к мнению и идентифицировал полоний, который был обнаружен в офисе и в других местах, и пришел к мнению о том, что производитель – Россия. В связи с этим вопрос: есть ли у господина Березовского экспертиза, которая подтверждает, что именно в России произведен обнаруженный полоний? Если есть такая экспертиза, может ли он нам ее предоставить?
Б.: Я сошлюсь на мнение эксперта…
К.: Он не может давать свое экспертное мнение по поводу полония.
О.: Я задал вопрос, что если Березовский проводил какую-то независимую экспертизу, и есть ли у него эта экспертиза об этом, о том, что производитель – Россия. Мы просим тогда предоставить нам результаты.
К.: Обследование всех этих мест проводилось органами, не связанными со Скотленд-Ярдом.
О.: Господин Березовский не ответил на мой вопрос.
Б.: Я отвечаю только на те вопросы, на которые мне позволяют отвечать.
О.: Вы мой вопрос отклоняете, я так понимаю?
К.: Это не тот вопрос, на который может ответить Березовский. На этот вопрос может ответить только ученый, который изучал этот полоний.
О.: В связи с этим Борис Березовский высказался по этому поводу и сказал, что полоний-210 был произведен в России. И мне интересно мнение Березовского, почему он пришел к такому мнению? Может быть, есть у него какой-то документ, который говорит как раз об этом, а я не знаю.
К.: Вы задали вопрос, как специалисту. А он не специалист.
О.: Зная возможности Березовского, он мог провести независимую экспертизу. Поэтому я его и спрашиваю об этом.
К.: Все проверки проводились органами, не связанными со Скотленд-Ярдом.
О.: Тогда простой вопрос: почему Борис Березовский говорит, что полоний был произведен в России?
К.: Он не обязан отвечать на этот вопрос.
О.: Но он может ответить? Вы разрешаете ему ответить?
Б.: Я предлагаю быть корректными здесь, и насколько я понимаю, господа из Скотленд-Ярда не хотят, чтобы я комментировал.
О.: Я понял”
Why Scotland Yard don’t want to talk about “Russian polonium”? Hm…
PS. For those who really want to find out more – search for old BAB’s friend Lord Goldsmith. BTW he was present at the last supper of Patarkazishvili “Badri” at BAB’s home. And it was him who gave advice to request extradition of Lugovoy.
ivanov,
What part of “exactly” do you not understand?
All I’m asking you to do is (a) state your point explicitly, and (b) show how exactly it is supported by BAB’s interview. That’s one sentence followed by one or two short quotes. Please.
“Kolya! Did you read BAB’s interview I mentioned?”
No, Ivanov. I didn’t. And I second db’s request: “All I’m asking you to do is (a) state your point explicitly, and (b) show how exactly it is supported by BAB’s interview. That’s one sentence followed by one or two short quotes. Please.”
Just assume, Ivanov, that I’m rather dim-witted and that hints and innuendo are beyond my grasp. The more direct, the better.
Ivanov – As I read the transcript, I see the Russian investigator asking something obviously beyond BAB’s competence. But even if I accept that the Brits didn’t want him to talk about it, I still don’t understand why you think it’s a smoking gun.
Are you saying that the Litvinenko hit was a post factum justification for British rulings that BAB’s life was in danger?
If so, are you also saying the Brit authorities played a part?
I thought Epstein’s piece was pretty shoddy overall. It had some interesting bits – in particular the parts regarding Litvinenko, his passports and aliases – and I’m not saying that there has been no other shoddy journalism around this, but overall it ended up as a barrel of unsubstantiated points and he ended up reading like a bit of a stooge for the Russians.
1 – Where is the evidence Litvinenko “came in contact with a Polonium-210 smuggling operation”. It just is dropped in at the end from nowhere.
2 – Likewise, what were these “murky operations” in the Pankisi Gorge? Where did this idea come from?
3 – No right of reply given to any of the people he mentions. E.g. what was the British police response to his points regarding the extradition warrant?
4 – Of course, Britain can’t simply “make available its secret evidence” or the surveillance reports of Litvinenko and his associates. Firstly it would prejudice any trial because it would be bypassing disclosure rules, and any half decent defence lawyer would have it all thrown out in a morning as a result. Secondly, it would probably lead to the discovery of the sources for the surveillance evidence.
Like I say, bits of his piece were interesting, but I think the main reason no major paper picked it up was that it failed just about every journalistic fact check and source check rule you could think of. I think the best we can hope for with this is that a decent journalist / paper picks it up and does it properly.