UK police charge two Russians in Salisbury Novichok poisoning
PVW said:
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
Related food for thought from this week’s New York Times Magazine:
A Trail of ‘Bread Crumbs,’ Leading Conspiracy Theorists Into the Wilderness
An excerpt:
What makes conspiracy-theory bread crumbs different is that they do little more than rearrange the known in hopes of sparking a conversation about the unknown. They speculate, interpret wildly, ask baffling questions. They adjust their narratives to link new developments back to old hints. These rhetorical moves all serve to conceal the fact that they have nothing verifiable to add.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:Related food for thought from this week’s New York Times Magazine:
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
A Trail of ‘Bread Crumbs,’ Leading Conspiracy Theorists Into the Wilderness
An excerpt:
What makes conspiracy-theory bread crumbs different is that they do little more than rearrange the known in hopes of sparking a conversation about the unknown. They speculate, interpret wildly, ask baffling questions. They adjust their narratives to link new developments back to old hints. These rhetorical moves all serve to conceal the fact that they have nothing verifiable to add.
What you are describing there is normal human behavior based with a situation that does not make sense. That regular people try sometimes incompetently to make sense of bizarre situations does not make true the original UK claim that these guys are GRU agents that poisoned the Skripls. The UK also has little verifiable to add.
PVW said:
Dissenting views aren't worth any more or less than any other kind of view on their own.
I’ll add, though, that given a well-reasoned prevailing view and a well-reasoned dissenting one, I personally find the dissenting one more valuable, because there’s inherent worth in bringing things to light that might otherwise have gone unconsidered. That is, a good contrarian, on his or her own, is more valuable to me than a good conventional argument (average price: a dime a dozen).
nan said:
What you are describing there is normal human behavior based with a situation that does not make sense. That regular people try sometimes incompetently to make sense of bizarre situations does not make true the original UK claim that these guys are GRU agents that poisoned the Skripls. The UK also has little verifiable to add.
First, I didn’t describe anything other than, briefly, the essay; the italicized description is by Mattathias Schwartz. Second, what regular people are faced with are choices like weighing information straight from a professor of supramolecular and nanoscale chemistry against information relayed by a former ambassador who spoke with an unidentified scientist. However they decide to choose, it’s not about incompetence.
jamie said:
They walked towards a residential neighborhood right after getting off the train - Why on earth would they do that?
They were there for the Cathedral - the spire - the clock. The found traces of the poison in their hotel room.
I've been there. You can see spires and clocks anywhere. The reason to go to that particular Cathedral is that it contains the best of the remaining three original copies of Magna Carte.
I guess these guys were not interested.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:Dissenting views aren't worth any more or less than any other kind of view on their own. Dissenting evidence, on the other hand, that's something of real value.
PVW said:Given how credulously PVW, Cramer, nohero, et al accept accusations against Russia and how vociferously they insist on skepticism of accusations against the UK, I doubt they'll find dissenting views of interest, but for the rest of us I thought it was worthy of note.
Given how credulously Nan and Paul accept accusations against the US and its allies, and how vociferously they insist on skepticism of accusations against Russia, I doubt they'll find the above of interest, but for the rest of us I thought it was worthy of note.
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
And yet, someone is killing Russian dissidents. Someone is bankrolling far right anti-democratic hate groups in Europe and the US. Someone is stealing private communications from political parties and strategically leaking them to influence elections.
If none of these actions seem important or worth caring about, then disavowing any and all evidence-based attempts to uncover those responsible is fine. No need to invest any effort in finding out who is responsible so long as enough dust is thrown up to confuse the issue and keep the conversation on the perfidy of the western democracies.
On the other hand, if one takes the view that these are important matters, then such a position is hardly a defensible one.
Of course you are assuming it is "Someone." Maybe there is more than one person who has the means and motivation to carry out these acts. That is what Craig Murray pointed out when he said that in comparison with Russia, Israel had more motivation to kill Skripal (to be clear, he did not accuse Israel of killing Skripal)
By now you should realize that many false accusations have been made in the Russia story. Here's the latest:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/politics/maria-butina-court-filing/index.html
"Documents uncovered by investigative journalists have provided the first public evidence that the suspects in the Salisbury novichok attack have formal ties to the Russian ministry of defence.
British authorities have charged Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov with conspiracy to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. The former Russian spy and his daughter were found collapsed on 4 March; the police officer fell ill after trying to help them. Prosecutors say Petrov and Boshirov work for Russian military intelligence, which President Vladimir Putin has denied.
But a passport information dossier for one of the two suspects bears a “top secret” marking and a telephone number with the order “Do not give information”. The number, called by the Observer on Saturday, links to a reception desk at the Russian defence ministry, where a clerk said he would not speak with journalists or provide any information.
The documents were published by Bellingcat, an online platform that began with investigations of attacks in Syria, and the Russian investigative outlet The Insider. Both sites also specialised in uncovering information about Russian soldiers active in Ukraine since 2014.
Other documents published by the two sites included an Aeroflot flight manifest that indicates the two men bought their tickets at the last minute, contradicting their claims that the trip to Salisbury had been planned long ago.
An information page for Petrov obtained by the news outlets gives little biographical information and no data about his past before 2009. Experts say that is extremely rare for a 39-year-old man, and that the department that issued his passport normally only does so for those working in certain roles for the government.
“Normal people don’t get their passports here,” Sergei Kanev, an investigative reporter who participated in the research, told TV Rain. “I don’t mean businessmen or high-ranking officials. I mean people who often work undercover, including the intelligence services.”
Here's the Bellingcat report:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:What Mr. Surovell means is, yes he is saying it was planted.
jamie said:Found a deadly nerve agent in a hotel four months later and no one who stayed there over the last four months is at risk?
They walked towards a residential neighborhood right after getting off the train - Why on earth would they do that?
They were there for the Cathedral - the spire - the clock. The found traces of the poison in their hotel room.
Traces of the poison were found in the hotel where the stayed
The Metropolitan Police confirmed today traces of Novichok were found in the two-star hotel after being tested at Porton Down in May - but reassured there was no threat to public health.Are you saying this was planted?
(Now I'm going to get a "You can't put words in my mouth" response.)
Of course the British police would never do that, especially when the reputation of the government is on the line.
Crime evidence in over 10,000 cases 'may have been manipulated'
FORENSIC evidence in more than 10,000 criminal cases across England and Wales may have been tampered with, police revealed today.
Edited to Add: As others have noted, I mis-read this article. The manipulation was carried out by the forensic firm employed by the police, not by the police themselves. No police involvement in the tampering has been reported thus far.
dave23 said:
Sometimes it helps to read the story.
It's been more than 2 days. Ready to retract the false charge you made against me?
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:Related food for thought from this week’s New York Times Magazine:
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
A Trail of ‘Bread Crumbs,’ Leading Conspiracy Theorists Into the Wilderness
An excerpt:
What makes conspiracy-theory bread crumbs different is that they do little more than rearrange the known in hopes of sparking a conversation about the unknown. They speculate, interpret wildly, ask baffling questions. They adjust their narratives to link new developments back to old hints. These rhetorical moves all serve to conceal the fact that they have nothing verifiable to add.
Excellent description of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:It's been more than 2 days. Ready to retract the false charge you made against me?
Sometimes it helps to read the story.
Your response was as honest as your belief that the police manipulated these results.
cramer said:
nan said:"Despite the mocking mob, there is nothing inherently improbable in the tale told by the two men. What matters is whether they can be connected to the novichok, and here the safety of the identification of the microscopic traces of novichok allegedly found in their hotel bedroom is key. I am no scientist, but I have been told by someone who is, that if the particle(s) were as the police state so small as to be harmless to humans, they would be too small for mass spectrometry analysis and almost certainly could not be firmly identified other than as an organophosphate. Perhaps someone qualified might care to comment."
cramer said:Here is what Craig said today. Let us know what he got wrong:
"I could list >10 claims that Craig has made sine the attack that have all been disproven. Why should his version of the narrative now be given any credence - it's just scattergun disinformation?"
https://twitter.com/professor_dave/status/1040550578307379200
"Novichok could not be detected at Porton Down unless they made it (wrong). Mug shots fake/poor quality (no). Snow should be on ground in Salisbury CCTV (it had melted in town). Airport photos faked (identical channels). Mass spec can't detect traces (wrong). And on and on..."
https://twitter.com/professor_dave/status/1040551964256428032
Lynch Mob Mentality
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/lynch-mob-mentality/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/lynch-mob-mentality/
"Whoever told you this is totally wrong. Mass spectrometry is outstanding for detection of trace amounts (down to sub ppb levels) - far less than would kill you. It tells you the mass of the compound, not the 'type', so it would identify the specific organophosphate used."
https://twitter.com/professor_dave/status/1040548964473417728
"Once again, this is sadly another example of the evidence, and the way it has been interpreted, getting twisted to make it fit your narrative."
https://twitter.com/professor_dave/status/1040549221949161472
eta - Carry on Nan. Murray is a crank.
Cramer, since you're an expert on Craig Murray's flaws, what are the answers to these questions he asks about the Skripal case?
So I ask this question again – and nobody so far has attempted to give me an answer. At what time did the Skripals touch their doorknob? Boshirov and Petrov arrived in Salisbury at 11.48 and could not have painted the doorknob before noon. The Skripals had left their house at 09.15, with their mobile phones switched off so they could not be geo-located. Their car was caught on CCTV on three cameras heading out of Salisbury to the North East. At 13.15 it was again caught on camera heading back in to the town centre from the North West.
How had the Skripals managed to get back to their home, and touch the door handle, in the hour between noon and 1pm, without being caught on any of the CCTV cameras that caught them going out and caught the Russian visitors so extensively? After this remarkably invisible journey, what time did they touch the door handle
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Your response was as honest as your belief that the police manipulated these results.
dave23 said:It's been more than 2 days. Ready to retract the false charge you made against me?
Sometimes it helps to read the story.
The article does not contradict the headline and excerpt that I posted. If you disagree, show us where it does.
When are you going to retract your false charge that I lied about Steele? You've had more than two days to show a modicum of integrity.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:The article does not contradict the headline and excerpt that I posted. If you disagree, show us where it does.
paulsurovell said:Your response was as honest as your belief that the police manipulated these results.
dave23 said:It's been more than 2 days. Ready to retract the false charge you made against me?
Sometimes it helps to read the story.
When are you going to retract your false charge that I lied about Steele? You've had more than two days to show a modicum of integrity.
My bad. When you wrote "Of course the British police would never do that...," I thought you were suggesting the police did that in this case. I guess you simply wrote that randomly and it had nothing to do with the article.
dave23 said:
My bad. When you wrote "Of course the British police would never do that...," I thought you were suggesting the police did that in this case.
Me, too. That, not the headine or excerpt, was the contradiction.
It was a private contractor.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:First, I didn’t describe anything other than, briefly, the essay; the italicized description is by Mattathias Schwartz. Second, what regular people are faced with are choices like weighing information straight from a professor of supramolecular and nanoscale chemistry against information relayed by a former ambassador who spoke with an unidentified scientist. However they decide to choose, it’s not about incompetence.
What you are describing there is normal human behavior based with a situation that does not make sense. That regular people try sometimes incompetently to make sense of bizarre situations does not make true the original UK claim that these guys are GRU agents that poisoned the Skripls. The UK also has little verifiable to add.
We'll have to wait to see how former Amb Craig Murray responds to the chemistry professor's statement.
While we're on the topic of chemistry professors, Murray has cited another chemistry professor, David B. Collum of Cornell, who says that Novichok can be made virtually any state lab and many non-state labs, so there is no basis for assuming that it came from Russia. In fact, if you look closely (not something highlighted by the media) the British govt never claimed it had evidence the Novichok came from Russia, it used weasel-words like "of a type developed in Russia" or something like that.
paulsurovell said:
Excellent description of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
By the way, I admired your comment the other day about syndromes caused by inflated egos.
DaveSchmidt said:
dave23 said:Me, too. That, not the headine or excerpt, was the contradiction.
My bad. When you wrote "Of course the British police would never do that...," I thought you were suggesting the police did that in this case.
It was a private contractor.
paulsurovell said:
Cramer, since you're an expert on Craig Murray's flaws, what are the answers to these questions he asks about the Skripal case?
So I ask this question again – and nobody so far has attempted to give me an answer. At what time did the Skripals touch their doorknob? Boshirov and Petrov arrived in Salisbury at 11.48 and could not have painted the doorknob before noon. The Skripals had left their house at 09.15, with their mobile phones switched off so they could not be geo-located. Their car was caught on CCTV on three cameras heading out of Salisbury to the North East. At 13.15 it was again caught on camera heading back in to the town centre from the North West.How had the Skripals managed to get back to their home, and touch the door handle, in the hour between noon and 1pm, without being caught on any of the CCTV cameras that caught them going out and caught the Russian visitors so extensively? After this remarkably invisible journey, what time did they touch the door handle
Why does Murray believe that contamination could have occurred only if the Skirpals had touched the doorknob before 1 p.m.? Is he contending that no would-be attackers would have left the vicinity without confirming that the target had touched the poison?
ETA: Never mind. His point seems to be that they were next spotted on the road at 1:30, and that their whereabouts were accounted for from then on, which limits the possible exposure time to noon-1:15 or so.
cramer said:
"Documents uncovered by investigative journalists have provided the first public evidence that the suspects in the Salisbury novichok attack have formal ties to the Russian ministry of defence.
British authorities have charged Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov with conspiracy to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. The former Russian spy and his daughter were found collapsed on 4 March; the police officer fell ill after trying to help them. Prosecutors say Petrov and Boshirov work for Russian military intelligence, which President Vladimir Putin has denied.
But a passport information dossier for one of the two suspects bears a “top secret” marking and a telephone number with the order “Do not give information”. The number, called by the Observer on Saturday, links to a reception desk at the Russian defence ministry, where a clerk said he would not speak with journalists or provide any information.
The documents were published by Bellingcat, an online platform that began with investigations of attacks in Syria, and the Russian investigative outlet The Insider. Both sites also specialised in uncovering information about Russian soldiers active in Ukraine since 2014.
Other documents published by the two sites included an Aeroflot flight manifest that indicates the two men bought their tickets at the last minute, contradicting their claims that the trip to Salisbury had been planned long ago.
An information page for Petrov obtained by the news outlets gives little biographical information and no data about his past before 2009. Experts say that is extremely rare for a 39-year-old man, and that the department that issued his passport normally only does so for those working in certain roles for the government.
“Normal people don’t get their passports here,” Sergei Kanev, an investigative reporter who participated in the research, told TV Rain. “I don’t mean businessmen or high-ranking officials. I mean people who often work undercover, including the intelligence services.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/15/documents-show-novichok-salisbury-suspects-alexander-petrov-ruslan-boshirov-links-defence?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Here's the Bellingcat report:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/14/skripal-poisoning-suspects-passport-data-shows-link-security-services/comment-page-3/#comments
Translated from Russian:
"The suspects bought tickets on foreign passports of the "65" series, the document numbers differ by the last digit: ... 1297 and ... 1294.
Apparently, in the hands of Boshirov and Petrov already had return tickets, and for two consecutive flights from Heathrow to Sheremetyevo - evening on March 4 and night 5-th. The British authorities believe that the suspects used the first.
There are almost no open sources of information about Boshirov. According to the "Fontanka", he was born on April 12, 1978 in Dushanbe, was registered in Moscow in a 25-storey house on Bolshaya Naberezhnaya street.
In 2015, he was brought into two executive proceedings for automobile fines received with a difference of three days, on July 20 and 23. The oddity is that the production numbers are not in order. The first assigned 433048, the second - 432322, although they were issued by one unit - the interdistrict department of bailiffs to collect administrative fines number 1 in Moscow. On the portal of the magistrates of the In 2015, he was brought into two executive proceedings for automobile fines received with a difference of three days, on July 20 and 23. The oddity is that the production numbers are not in order. The first assigned 433048, the second - 432322, although they were issued by one unit - the interdistrict department of bailiffs to collect administrative fines number 1 in Moscow. On the portal of the magistrates of the capital there are no cases of administrative violations against Ruslan Boshirov. Also it is not in the database of executive production.capital there are no cases of administrative violations against Ruslan Boshirov. Also it is not in the database of executive production.
"Fontanka" phoned long-term residents of the "Boshiro" house on the Great Embankment. They live on the same stairwell. "In the apartment you named, only an elderly woman lives," the correspondent replied. "We carry her money, she collects for cleaning the cleaner." A man was never seen in the apartment and was not seen at the entrance. We can only assume that this is the son of the hostess, who is registered at the address, but who has never lived here. "
Boshirov's network activity is no different either. The pages created under this name and last name in 2014 are empty. On Facebook, Boshirova has one friend registered, a girl from Ukraine. The profile "VKontakte" contains information that Boshirov graduated in 2004 from the geography department of Moscow State University in the direction "Hydrology of the land".
According to Fontanka, Boshirova and Petrova, foreign passports (conventional, non-biometric) were issued about two years ago when they began to issue forms of the 65th series. These passports often flew to Europe. From September 2016 to March 2018 they visited Amsterdam, Geneva, Milan, repeatedly - Paris. Alexander Petrov at least once before the case, Salisbury was in London - from February 28 to March 5, 2017.
Petrov is even less known. According to the documents, he was born on July 13, 1979 *. A person with such a date of birth and a given name can be found in the list of employees of the national manufacturer of immunobiological preparations - the FSUE NPO "Microgen". It was created in 2003 by the merger of fourteen enterprises of the immunobiological industry. The structure of "Microgen", subordinate to the Ministry of Health, includes nine branches."
| https://www.fontanka.ru/2018/09/05/075/ |
More from Murray:
In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast “Petrov and Boshirov” managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.
This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals’ location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.
The victims were locals. One could argue that locals use side streets more often than visitors like the suspects, who were recorded on CCTV on a main drag. And maybe leaving home took the Skripals on more CCTV-monitored roads than their return.
Murray’s questions generate their own set of questions. This is why criminal convictions in the United States require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than proof that eliminates all questions.
"An ongoing Bellingcat investigation conducted jointly with The Insider Russia has confirmed through uncovered passport data that the two Russian nationals identified by UK authorities as prime suspects in the Novichokpoisonings on British soil are linked to Russian security services. This finding directly contradicts claims by the Russian president on 12 September 2018, and by the two men in an interview broadcast on RT one day later, that they are civilians who traveled to Salisbury for a tourist getaway.
Original Russian documents reviewed by Bellingcat and The Insider confirm definitively that the two men were registered in the central Russian resident database under the names Alexander Yevgenievich Petrov and Ruslan Timurovich Boshirov, respectively, and were issued internal passports under these names in 2009. However, no records exist for these two personas prior to 2009. This suggests the two names were likely cover identities for operatives of one of the Russian security services. Crucially, at least one man’s passport files contain various “top-secret” markings, which, according to at least two sources consulted by Bellingcat, are typically reserved for members of secret services or top state operatives.
These findings, along with peculiarities in the two men’s bookings of their flight to London, make Russia’s official statements that Petrov and Boshirov are civilian tourists implausible, and corroborate UK authorities’ claims that they are in fact officers of a Russian security service."
eta: Bellingcat - Media Bias/ Fact Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bellingcat/
DaveSchmidt said:
dave23 said:Me, too. That, not the headine or excerpt, was the contradiction.
My bad. When you wrote "Of course the British police would never do that...," I thought you were suggesting the police did that in this case.
It was a private contractor.
Right, I misread the article. I'll correct the post.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:Related food for thought from this week’s New York Times Magazine:
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
A Trail of ‘Bread Crumbs,’ Leading Conspiracy Theorists Into the Wilderness
An excerpt:
What makes conspiracy-theory bread crumbs different is that they do little more than rearrange the known in hopes of sparking a conversation about the unknown. They speculate, interpret wildly, ask baffling questions. They adjust their narratives to link new developments back to old hints. These rhetorical moves all serve to conceal the fact that they have nothing verifiable to add.
Very Foucault's Pendulum.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:I’ll add, though, that given a well-reasoned prevailing view and a well-reasoned dissenting one, I personally find the dissenting one more valuable, because there’s inherent worth in bringing things to light that might otherwise have gone unconsidered. That is, a good contrarian, on his or her own, is more valuable to me than a good conventional argument (average price: a dime a dozen).
Dissenting views aren't worth any more or less than any other kind of view on their own.
In general I agree -- but I think a good contrarian starts with a dissenting view but does not end there. A view -- assenting, dissenting, or somewhere in the middle -- is necessary but not sufficient. It's a jumping off point, not an end to itself.
Paul's post shortly after yours reinforced my point, I think. What exactly is he advancing? He manages to accuse Israel, while making sure to note that he's not actually, you know, accusing Israel, urges us to be skeptical of allegations against Russia, and offers nothing beyond this. It's the worst sort of contrarianism -- dissenting without actually taking an alternative position one would need to defend.
And again, given that people are in fact being poisoned, that elections are in fact being tampered with, that liberal democracy is in fact under threat, I find it to be a wholly unsatisfying one. It's great to be skeptical and ask questions, but eventually those questions have to actually lead somewhere, or else the de facto position is that one does not actually want the questions ever answered.
PVW said:
It's great to be skeptical and ask questions, but eventually those questions have to actually lead somewhere, or else the de facto position is that one does not actually want the questions ever answered.
Yup. That’s why the comparison to a criminal trial comes to mind when I think about the Novichok skeptics. Murray, for one, keeps raising questions, which lead him to conclusions like “it appears very much more probable that ...” This is the tactic of defense counsel. We need defense counsels to do this. But defense counsels have an agenda, and it’s not the same as the jury’s. At some point, the jury has to decide whether the questions raise reasonable doubt, and it can decide they don’t, even if they remain unanswered.
But, as you say, a certain kind of skeptic, like a good defense lawyer, is in thrall to the unanswerability (at least with 100 percent certainty) of some questions. One guy I came across online made a big deal out of a Google Map he created showing that the Novichok suspects didn’t take the most direct route to the Skripal house, and why would committed assassins stray like that? The very first commenter pointed out something that was immediately obvious: The guy used driving directions, not walking; there’s a path that made the suspects’ route perfectly sensible. The guy then said, yeah, well, maybe — but then why did they go directly to the house and not take a diversion to a store or something to be less obvious? Only incompetent assassins would go directly to the house, right?
Questions. Always questions.
"Wow. Proekt got a hold of Ruslan Boshirov's internal passport file, same as @bellingcat / @the_ins_ru did with Petrov. His file has the same peculiar details that Petrov's did. Another nail in the coffin for the "sports vitamin salesmen" story."
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1041051177863938048
Translation from Russian:
"At the disposal of the "Project" was a document that indicates the possible involvement in the Russian special services of the second suspect in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal - Ruslan Boshirov. This file with a photograph of Boshirova from the information system "Russian passport", he was sent to our mail proekt.media@protonmail.com.
On the document the same marks, as in the passport file of Alexander Petrov. On the file, Boshirova also has a stamp "Do not give information." Earlier, Bellingcat, referring to his sources, wrote that this note may indicate that the file from the passport system belongs to a person connected with Russian special services. On the stamp the same phone number, presumably belonging to the Ministry of Defense, is indicated. Petrov's file was also marked "there is a letter, ss," which can be deciphered as "top secret." File Boshirova scanned badly, but it also can see one "s".
The file Boshirov said that he received a passport because of the "unfitness" of the old in October 2010 (Petrov - "in return for the spoiled" in 2009). The document also contains the number of Boshirov's allegedly old passport. As The Insider and Bellingcat previously wrote, Petrov's old passport number turned out to be false - there is no record with such a number in the passport database.
The file Boshirov said that he received a passport because of the "unfitness" of the old in October 2010 (Petrov - "in return for the spoiled" in 2009). The document also contains the number of Boshirov's allegedly old passport. As The Insider and Bellingcat previously wrote, Petrov's old passport number turned out to be false - there is no record with such a number in the passport database."
https://t.me/wwwproektmedia/22
Dissenting views aren't worth any more or less than any other kind of view on their own. Dissenting evidence, on the other hand, that's something of real value.
It's also something conspicuously lacking in all these Russia threads. Pressed on if you're arguing for trusting the Russian government, you demur. So if we take your view, where does that leave us? We should disbelieve any evidence in support of accusations against Russia, but you won't commit to alternative theories, much less advance evidence in support of them.
And yet, someone is killing Russian dissidents. Someone is bankrolling far right anti-democratic hate groups in Europe and the US. Someone is stealing private communications from political parties and strategically leaking them to influence elections.
If none of these actions seem important or worth caring about, then disavowing any and all evidence-based attempts to uncover those responsible is fine. No need to invest any effort in finding out who is responsible so long as enough dust is thrown up to confuse the issue and keep the conversation on the perfidy of the western democracies.
On the other hand, if one takes the view that these are important matters, then such a position is hardly a defensible one.