The BBC and other media have announced this evening that, according to the brother of Charlie Rowley, the toxin that poisoned him and Dawn Sturgess was found in a perfume bottle that Rowley had picked up.
Interestingly, an article published online by the Daily Telegraph that now says similar to the BBC’s version first said something very different when it was published at 7.01pm this evening:
The original Telegraph article, left, and the one that quickly replaced it at the same url
The original version came complete with quotes from a chemical weapons expert about the likelihood that ‘assassins’ had used Rowley’s house – said to be vacant at the time – as a ‘safe house’ to prepare for the ‘hit’. But the article also speculated that Rowley had found the bottle when he moved in – which would mean his first contact with the poison or its container could go back weeks further than initially thought.
The media may be harmonising their stories, but the new developments raise more questions than they answer. The ‘MSM’ are still failing to ask those pertinent – and obvious – questions or the others that were already obvious last week.
As the SKWAWKBOX pointed out last week, when Charlie Rowley regained consciousness on Wednesday the police had been in possession of his house for twelve days but apparently did not find the ‘small glass bottle’ containing the poison until Rowley woke and, presumably, told them where to find it.
◦ weren’t the police searching during this period?
◦ if they were, does this mean the bottle was hidden?
◦ if it was not hidden, why didn’t police take all potential candidate containers for testing immediately?
It’s not as if the idea of a perfume bottle didn’t occur to anyone. Days before the police found the bottle, the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner had already suggested exactly that – which raises questions in itself, as the coincidence is certainly striking and Gardner has been rumoured to be close to UK security services, a rumour that Gardner has denied, although he has written of an attempt by the SIS to recruit him as a young man.
Wired article on Novichok poisons published early last week, before ‘glass bottle’ found
As the SKWAWKBOX also highlighted last week, after the Skripal poisoning in March, police released CCTV footage of a couple they described as persons of interest. Still images of this footage have been published by anonymous authors with claims of a strong resemblance to Rowley and Sturgess.
The ‘persons of interest’ captured on CCTV on the day of the Salisbury attack, close to where the Skripals were found
◦ why have the media failed to comment on this resemblance?
◦ have investigators discounted the link?
◦ if so, why haven’t the media mentioned what would be an important and clearly very significant development?
◦ if the footage has not been discounted, why are no media commenting on the coincidence that a couple resembling the more recent victims was in the vicinity of the first poisoning?
When police eventually announced that the Skripals had been poisoned by means of Novichok applied to the front door handle of their house, we were told that it was applied as a gel or some form of ‘gloop’ to prevent it being neutralised by weathering. This does not seem compatible with the idea of it being mistaken for a bottle of ‘perfume’.
In addition, the Telegraph’s original article suggested that Rowley may have found the bottle in his house rather than finding it in the street and picking up at random or speculatively.
◦ when/where did Rowley ‘pick it up’, as his
◦ was the poison in gel form? If so:
◦ how did the Skripal attackers apply it effectively from a bottle designed to look like perfume?
◦ how were Rowley and Sturgess fooled into thinking it was perfume long enough for both of them to handle it without suspicion?
◦ Rowley continued to go about his day with a friend after Dawn Sturgess was hospitalised – why weren’t his suspicions raised by her illness after touching a bottle of ‘gloopy perfume?
◦ if it was not gel-like, how was it applied to the Skripals’ door handle successfully, since we were told the ‘gloop’ was necessary to the application?
◦ if it was not gel-like, how would the Skripals’ attackers use it without risk of their own contamination by the liquid or aerosol form?
◦ how long did Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley have the bottle?
◦ if they were contaminated quickly on finding it, why did it take hours for them to become ill?
◦ if Rowley simply ‘found’ the bottle and picked it up, why had the police not found it twelve days after taking possession of Rowley’s home where it eventually turned up?
◦ why did the Telegraph simply over-write its original article with the new one, instead of publishing a separate update? Was it merely that it was quickly superseded by new information?
When first interviewed by the BBC, Matthew Rowley said that he wasn’t sure how his brother had become ‘involved with that lot’.
◦ what ‘lot’? People? A substance? Something else?
The media have not raised these obvious questions – and other potential ones – that the circumstances, official narrative and new developments raise.
Any of these questions might have perfectly logical answers – but unlike what might be expected of journalists covering a huge story, none of the MSM seem asking them to find out.
PDF of original Telegraph ‘safe house’ article here.