Dec 08 2006

Strange Report On Poisoned Cup

68 responses so far

68 Responses to “Strange Report On Poisoned Cup”

1. clarice says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:35 pm

   Not weird. COnsistent with the TImes of London report days ago.

2. Enlightened says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:38 pm

   Also not weird for an assassin to use poison in a drink.

   Pretty weird for a smuggler to poison his own drink. Or his comrades in the smuggling ring.

3. clarice says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:40 pm

   I’d say..Maybe that’s what AJ means–“weird=doesn’t fit with my theory”
   *wink*

4. Enlightened says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:43 pm

   Here’s what I find somewhat weird too: Statements by Putin:

   He said there was “no evidence of a crime” – Because he assume the PO210 would leave no evidence?

   Questioning the genuineness of the Litvinenko statement, Putin said: “Why was this note not published when he was still alive?” – Why would Litvinenko publish a deathbed letter before he dies? Does Putin require terminally ill critics to name their alleged assassin before they die?

   Putin called Litvinenko’s death a “tragedy,” but said he had seen no definitive proof as yet that it was a “violent death.” – If this was a tragic, accidental event , why would putin care if it was “violent” – maybe he assumed the assassins would be more aggressive.

5. clarice says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:51 pm

   From the description of his last days, I’d say it was a violent death, wouldn’t you?

6. crosspatch says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:57 pm

   It is consistant with a poisoning but doesn’t explain weeks of contamination earlier. Litvinenko wasn’t enough of a threat to the Kremlin to risk exposing foreign nationals to a deadly poison (and possibly killing some of them) and creating a dipolmatic nightmare.

   Scaramella couldn’t have ingested that large of a dose from a “european hug greeting” and not gotten any on his clothing or skin where he would have left a trail of contamination. How do you get 5x a lethal dose inside your body from a hug but not get any on your clothes? Must have been quite an exchange of body fluids along with that hug!

7. crosspatch says:

   December 8, 2006 at 4:58 pm

   “Litvinenko wasn’t enough of a threat to the Kremlin to risk exposing foreign nationals to a deadly poison (and possibly killing some of them) and creating a dipolmatic nightmare.”

   In other words, Litvinenko wasn’t enough of a threat to Russia to commit an act of war over.

8. Enlightened says:

   December 8, 2006 at 5:03 pm

   Who do we believe this stranger to be?

   One of the men, a stranger, had repeatedly urged him to join him in a cup of tea, Litvinenko was reported to have told detectives.

9. clarice says:

   December 8, 2006 at 5:04 pm

   And you think of –on the incredible chance Britain could prove Putin wass behind this–they’d invade Russia?
   LOL

   OTOH, beset by antagonistic ex-oligarchs and fretting ex-republics and internal opposition can you think of a better message from Putin:I don’t give a shit who I kill nor how.

10. Enlightened says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Clarice – violent ie: gunshot, hit by car, bomb, stabbing – I think Putin assumed his death was “not violent” because he was told it would be “slow, painful”….

11. crosspatch says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    “And you think of –on the incredible chance Britain could prove Putin wass behind this–they’d invade Russia?
    LOL”

    No, of course not. But if the Kremlin was behind it it would pretty much mean an end to all trade and other problems. You don’t just go in poisoning another country’s citizens.

    Clarice, I am baffled by your belief in all of this. I detect emotion overriding logic. You seem to so strongly hold the belief that Putin did it that you hold onto that in the face of what I feel is overwhelming odds against it.

    1. You don’t undertake an operation to kill an extremely minor crackpot in a way that can kill another country’s citizens. It would be like the the US contaminating London and killing foreign nationals to get Lyndon Larouche or Larry Johnson when a simple bullet would do. It is driving a thumbtack with a pile driver.

    2. You don’t carry the poison in and out and in and out and in the country carrying it on airliners, risking your wife and children, etc.

    3, You don’t go tracking radioactive poison all over the place for several weeks before you do the deed.

    4. You don’t poison yourself, your wife, and possibly your child and other members of your team as apparently happened with Lugovoi.

    It clear that it is an accidental contamination. It is clear that polonium was being moved back and forth with Lugovoi for weeks before the poisoning.

    Lugovoi’s security company was probably contracted to move high value material as AJ theorises and it leaked contaminating him and possibly his family. Lugovoi paid him back for it.

12. clarice says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    Personally, I’d opt for the gunshot..And I take his statement as simply another attempt to diminish the suspicion against him. I’m with Krauthammer on this and always have been,,the way to deflect suspicion is to do the most obvious thing. (Like carrying out an act of anarchistic violenece when looking obviously like an anarchist.)

13. Enlightened says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Litvinenko had many enemies in the Russian government – from Yukos, to KGB/FSB ever since he turned in 1998.

    I think the assassin laid in wait for him, observed him with his comrades, and slipped em all a mickey just for good measure.

14. crosspatch says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    Also, if all of this stuff were being smuggled for a Christmas operation, maybe Litvinenko thought the operation would be done by the time symptoms manifested themselves or been recognized for what they were.

15. Enlightened says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Clarice – Exactly – Hiding in Plain Sight.

    And BTW- I don’t believe Putin is the architect – I think a consensus agreed that Litvinenko had to go – I think Putin knew it was in the works, and nothing will ever get traced back to him. It would be cool if he was glowing at night however. The Kremlin has it’s brand on this I’m certain.

16. clarice says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    When I was a yong lawyer my opponent used that emotion v (his)logic argument on me and the Court opinion upholding my argument was in the mail as I flew back to D.C. from the argument:

    Clarice, I am baffled by your belief in all of this. I detect emotion overriding logic. You seem to so strongly hold the belief that Putin did it that you hold onto that in the face of what I feel is overwhelming odds against it.

    “1. You don’t undertake an operation to kill an extremely minor crackpot in a way that can kill another country’s citizens. It would be like the the US contaminating London and killing foreign nationals to get Lyndon Larouche or Larry Johnson when a simple bullet would do. It is driving a thumbtack with a pile driver.”

    You do if (a) your assassin is a bungler or you want to send a message. Maybe part of the message is to the Brits to stop shielding his enemies by granting them amnesty and refusing to extradite them.

    “2. You don’t carry the poison in and out and in and out and in the country carrying it on airliners, risking your wife and children, etc.”
    Putin’s wife and children’s lives were put at risk? You’re assuming Lugovoy et al were the assassins. I don’t. Either the assassin targeted them, too; used their belongings to plant the poison, or in some other way spread the contamination to them. (Or just possible–as the Times reported there was (a) a smuggling effort AND a separate assassination.

    “3, You don’t go tracking radioactive poison all over the place for several weeks before you do the deed.”
    Who’s the “you”?

    “4. You don’t poison yourself, your wife, and possibly your child and other members of your team as apparently happened with Lugovoi.”
    Repetitive and answered.

    “It clear that it is an accidental contamination.”

    Not to me.
    “It is clear that polonium was being moved back and forth with Lugovoi for weeks before the poisoning” Yes. But was he aware of it? Was he, in fact, being st up for the fall guy? Was he smuggling and used to cover for the assassination without his knowledge.

17. crosspatch says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    Any reports from any source other than Interfax that Lugovoi and crew are really sick?

    Anyone know where Scaramella is right now?

18. crosspatch says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    “Putin’s wife and children’s lives were put at risk?”

    No, Lugovoi wouldn’t risk his own wife and kids. I am assuming that he knew he was carrying something of extremely high value but didn’t think it was harmful because on one trip he brought his wife and child even introducing his child at one point to Litvinenko, I believe.

    In order for your scenario to be true, it has to be complicated beyond nearly all possibility. You have to have people contaminating Lugovoi on purpose … apparently several times. Simply poisoning Litvinenko once would send the needed “message”. You don’t need 50-100x the required amount and you don’t need to dust half of London with the stuff over several weeks time.

    Yes, it is possible, but unlikely.

    For it to be smuggling with accidental leakage and the killing of Litvinenko as part of a cover-up, you need none of that stuff to happen. You just kill Litvinenko with a dose massive enough to ensure he gets sick first, then everyone else can go to the hospital.

19. clarice says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Per the Times the theory is one smuggling operation, one Russian team following on and trailing them AND an assassin (whether or not in a pear tree with dancing maids they don’t say).

    I do not know about the October trips, but on the November trip the plane was full of Russians coming to London for the soccer match–perfect cover for an assassin.

20. crosspatch says:

    December 8, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    Opps, posted this in the wrong thread:

    Well, Clarice, I have nothing but respect for your judgement based on what I have seen you develop in the past, so I am not discounting it out of hand. It is, however, getting harder for me to see how this was a targeted assassination.

    I await more hard info from Scotland Yard.