by David Webb
We are in the end-game of a free society here. Have you been following the Skripal Inquiry? John Helmer, an Australian journalist, has been following it closely. These points are hard to believe and yet true:
1. Jack Holborn, the barrister appointed by the British government to represent the Skripals, has not been in contact with the Skripals, and is in fact just presenting the UK government narrative. The Skripals are not giving evidence, and no-one knows what country they are living in.
2. The judge has ruled that heavily vetted and edited transcripts of police interviews with the Skripals will be the only evidence from them – they won’t actually give evidence – and statements by their police and MI6 guards will be sufficient to verify the information. https://johnhelmer.net/the-end-of-the-skripals/
3. It is claimed novichok was sprayed on the door handle of the Skripals’ house and that it took 2.5 hours to take effect on them, resulting in their slumping on a park bench after eating in a restaurant later that day. CCTV evidence on the assassins’ movements does not show they even came close to the Skripals’ house, although they did walk in nearby roads. The inquiry was told “But it does seem at least possible that Boshirov and Petrov may even have been in the vicinity of Sergei Skripal’s house at the time that the Skripals were leaving” and “They were then lost from the view of CCTV cameras for 31 minutes before they re-emerged at the junction of the High Street and Bridge Street — that’s the blue marking to the right that you can see there – and walked back towards the station. You will hear evidence, sir, as to where they might have been and what they might have done during that 31-minute period”.
A Russian embassy statement was read to the inquiry: “ ‘It has never been explained how it was possible for the Skripals to lose consciousness simultaneously several hours after coming into contact with the nerve agent, despite them being persons of different age, gender and body constitution’ and ‘It has never been explained why not a single person providing first aid and further medical assistance to the Skripals ever developed any signs or symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, even if the nature of the poisoning was not known at least for two days.’” See https://johnhelmer.net/the-british-governments-novichok-trial-reveals-a-toxic-shock/
4. After the death of Dawn Sturgess, the police said: “this assessment is consistent [sic] with the discovery [sic] of a contaminated perfume bottle within the flat. ROWLEY confirms that he picked up the bottle as a gift for STURGESS”. But it turns out no such perfume bottle – stated as possibly left in a bin the park three weeks after the attack on the Skripals – was found after numerous searches of the Sturgess house by the police and ambulance staff (other statements suggest a subsequent search 10 days later did – but the inquiry shows that repeated searches nearer the time did not produce such a bottle). The Sturgess toxicology report prepared by Salisbury Hospital remains secret. [My view is that Sturgess, living a few miles from Britain’s own chemical warfare labs at Porton Down, was clearly a worker in Porton Down – a fact the newspapers do not touch on.] https://johnhelmer.net/the-million-pound-ransom-how-the-british-governments-investigation-of-novichok-is-poisoning-itself/
5. The inquiry is told that both the Skripals were sedated while in hospital to prevent them from talking. Testimony by Dr Stephen Cockroft shows the government ordered the hospital to punish the doctor for talking directly to Yulia Skripal when she came out of her coma on March 8, 2018. A witness statement by the doctor says:
“I had not realised that this was a sedation hold [sedation stopped]. I felt shocked and a degree of Euphoria that she has woke [sic] up. Yulia nodded her head on occasions throughout the conversation, I would describe it as slow, not a normal nod in terms of the movement, nonetheless it was a very purposeful nod… I think Anna and Rebecca [ICU nurses on duty at Radnor Ward] were shook up that the patient waked [sic] quite as quickly as she did… I was staggered to see Yulia with her eyes open and apparently responding in a meaningful way. Yulia was looking at Anna in a purposeful way, her eyes were wide open, her gaze was directed towards Anna in a way that suggested to me that she had good vision to perceive that Anna was the person that was talking to her. It wasn’t a response we would see from someone with brain damage There were a couple of occasions when she shook her head from side to side again this was quite slowly, but purposefully. You would need a high degree for neurological function in order to do that. I also asked Yulia if she could squeeze my fingers on her left and the right and she did. She is the one [compared with Sergei Skripal], if I thought there was going to be some real long lasting damage it would be to her and there she was apparently awake”.
Cockroft’s evidence that Yulia woke up and was responsive directly contradicts evidence given to the High Court in March 2018 by government officials. His evidence that she woke up after 4 days also contradicts Yulia Skripal’s prepared statement (prepared by whom? and what inducements was she given to read it?) she read to the media in May 2018 that said she had been comatose for 20 days. Cockroft told the inquiry:
“An untoward event took place on Thursday 8 March 2018. A colleague (Dr James Haslam) had ordered all sedation to be discontinued temporarily to Yulia Skripal. This is quite a common practice on Intensive Care Units (ICU) and we refer to it as a ‘sedation hold’ and would normally be planned and discussed with the team. Unfortunately, having ordered the sedation hold, Dr Haslam left the ICU without advising me. I was present on the ICU treating another patient. As a consequence, Yulia Skripal regained consciousness very quickly and was confused, frightened, trying to get out of bed and was pulling at her various vascular access lines and breathing tube.”
The doctor was then punished by the hospital for having had any interaction at all with Yulia Skripal:
“I tried to feedback my concerns to Dr Haslam, but he was of the opinion that nothing untoward had occurred, but when these events were reported back to the Medical Director (Christine Blanshard) she had a very different opinion and I was summoned to a meeting with her on Monday 12 March to discuss my management of the incident. There is no formal record of that meeting [sic], however I was suspended from working on the ICU with immediate effect until Yulia and Sergei had either been discharged or died. Apparently by having had a conversation with Yulia Skripal I had been unprofessional and should have left such a conversation to the security services. I was warned by Dr Blanshard that I should not discuss any aspect of the poisonings with colleagues or other individuals and advised that any such discussion would be treated as serious misconduct. As a result of having communicated with Yulia Skripal I was interviewed by the police and my statement recorded.”
John Helmer on his blog adds: “By enforcing sedation on the two patients for the government’s political purpose, without their consent when they were conscious, out of coma, and capable of communicating, Blanshard violated her Hippocratic Oath. Blanshard has not been called to testify to the Inquiry”.
A witness statement to the police by the second doctor, Stephen Haslam, shows Yulia Skripal could breathe and talk without the tube in her neck she was shown on camera with in May 2018. John Helmer’s summary is:
“Haslam’s witness statement to police on July 9, 2018 – two days after Dawn Sturgess’s officially recorded death — conceals that Yulia Skripal had recovered consciousness as soon as the sedation was removed four days after her admission to SDH. Haslam also conceals what Cockroft’s March 8 record shows – that Yulia Skripal could breathe and speak without the tracheostomic intubation visible later. Instead, Haslam now claims to the Hughes Inquiry that while under sedation the two Skripals were subject to a tracheostomy on March 21; this, Haslam says, was maintained for a week for Yulia until March 28; for Sergei until April 5. Haslam provides no medical reason for this procedure”.
The tracheostomy was just before technicians from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) arrived from The Netherlands to take blood samples from the Skripals. The state-ordered sedation and tracheostomy prevented the Skripals from talking to the OPCW.
The fact that Yulia had more severe symptoms than her 66-year-old diabetic father is also odd. It is more likely the pair were attacked on the park bench – not that anything happened to the door handle 2.5 hours previously – and that Yulia received a higher dose of whatever was administered (by aerosol spray) to them in the park. See https://johnhelmer.net/novichok-show-trial-suffers-sudden-death-shock-from-doctors-testimony-that-government-officials-sedated-the-skripals-to-stop-them-talking/
This inquiry will wrap up by Christmas, and is already producing some surprising testimony, although most of the testimony is highly managed towards supporting official narratives. The media are not reporting on the discrepancies.
