Litvinenko 'probably murdered on personal orders of Putin

[Bootstoots]

I bet Putin was unaware of this guy's existence, before he died. Like ~99.999% of other people.

Litvinenko? Putin was definitely aware of him - he was an FSB guy who went public with a scandal about FSB members being hired out by organized crime in the late 1990s. This included, supposedly, an order to kill Berezovsky, and he went public in a press conference in 1998. He was fired as a result by Putin acting as head of the FSB. Then he went to Britain and claimed asylum, after which he worked with MI6 and made public claims about the Russian power structure, some of which were bizarre and certainly not true (e.g. that the riots about the Muhammad cartoon in a Danish newspaper were orchestrated by the FSB to punish Denmark for its refusal to extradite Chechen separatists).

His public denunciation of the FSB, repeated loudly after his asylum in the UK, and work with MI6 definitely gave the FSB a reason to want him to die in a slow, public way as a warning to anyone who might try defecting in that manner. He also appears to have pissed off some organized criminals as well, so it isn't totally impossible that it could have been organized crime rather than the FSB. And of course it's also quite possible that the FSB did it without a direct order from Putin. But the circumstantial evidence definitely points to the FSB, with Putin either ordering the hit or providing implicit support to the assassination while not specifically ordering them to kill him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

 

[red_elk]

I am starting to see a sinister western plot everywhere.

Is "The west did it" Russia's version of the American truther movement?

I don't know. If American truther movement are the guys who see an FSB plot everywhere, then probably yes.

 

[red_elk]

His public denunciation of the FSB, repeated loudly after his asylum in the UK, and work with MI6 definitely gave the FSB a reason to want him to die in a slow, public way as a warning to anyone who might try defecting in that manner.

Public denunciation of FSB is not something extraordinary - you can find hundreds of people doing it in Russia and outside of it, on different levels and using different media outlets. And even defecting and working for foreign intelligence still puts him into quite broad company. Yet, FSB in its history have never assassinate people out of revenge (as you suppose) and in such demonstrative and detrimental to country's reputation way. On the contrary, a few known cases of assassination where Russian special forces have likely been involved to (such as killing Yandarbiev in Qatar), were done for purely pragmatic reasons and in as much covert manner as possible.

But the circumstantial evidence definitely points to the FSB, with Putin either ordering the hit or providing implicit support to the assassination while not specifically ordering them to kill him.

Circumstantial evidences here are entirely subjective. Since British investigation is not transparent (as far as I know they don't disclose evidences because they are classified), this leaves a lot of room for different interpretations and speculations basing on people's bias.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It was done perfectly as designed. Slow and painful death, lots of journalists, huge scandal.

In Russia, Western CIA kill you, if you are friend of West and enemy of Russia.
While it must be comforting for the average Russian to think this, I suspect deep down in Russia they know the truth.

Public denunciation of FSB is not something extraordinary - you can find hundreds of people doing it in Russia

Well in America, hundreds of protesters even bring weapons and point weapons at police all the time, but only if they are white.

Yet, FSB in its history have never assassinate people out of revenge (as you suppose) and in such demonstrative and detrimental to country's reputation way. On the contrary, a few known cases of assassination where Russian special forces have likely been involved to (such as killing Yandarbiev in Qatar), were done for purely pragmatic reasons and in as much covert manner as possible.

What "pragmatic" reason for assassinating President of Ukraine ?

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, it does seem that calling the bloke a pedophile gangster probably gets you on Putin's hit list.

paywall

 

[Mouthwash]

I am starting to see a sinister western plot everywhere.

Is "The west did it" Russia's version of the American truther movement?

Well, George Galloway stated on Press TV that Israel was probably behind it:


Link to video.

So... I'd say probably yes.

 

[Agent327]

Mr Galloway conducted a separate investigation, did he?

 

[Kyriakos]

English independent research also brought us highlights such as Sadam having WMDs, and Milosevic having massacred hundreds of thousands of albanians. They are about as independent as Cameron is from inserting his parts in a dead pig's mouth, ennit?

 

[Arwon]

paywall

Tbh the Oz is seldom worth it but yeah that's the jist of the lede.

 

[Agent327]

English independent research also brought us highlights such as Sadam having WMDs, and Milosevic having massacred hundreds of thousands of albanians. They are about as independent as Cameron is from inserting his parts in a dead pig's mouth, ennit?

That's nice. This was a judicial investigation, Kyr.

But since we're frollicking, here's a cartoonist's view:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon~p3761431/3549472/

(translation: "I don't think I will go play football at Vladimir's this afternoon")

 

[Silurian]

Is it usual for investigations like this to take just under 10 years? Did the British government have it quietly shelved for a couple years and decided to dust it off recently?

The police inquiry was not getting anywhere so the inquiry was instigated to investigate the available facts. One and a half years is not too long.

From Litvinenko inquiry includes links to PDF of report and other docs

Background

On 22 July 2014 the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP, announced the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006. The inquiry was formally set up on 31 July 2014.

Sir Robert Owen, having acted as Assistant Coroner responsible for conducting the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death, was appointed to chair the inquiry. Sir Robert, who retired as a High Court judge on 19 September 2014, suspended the inquest and opened the inquiry having been asked to do so by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in accordance with paragraph 3 of schedule 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In his opening address, on 31 July 2014, Sir Robert set out the chronology of events leading to the decision to hold the inquiry, starting with the opening of an inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death on 30 November 2006. Although the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death is now suspended pending conclusion of the inquiry, information about proceedings in the inquest remains available on the inquest page on this website.

Public hearings took place in court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London between 27 January and 30 March 2015; the hearings recommenced on 24 July and finished on 31 July 2015. The public and closed hearings into the death of Alexander Litvinenko have been completed. The Chairman delivered his Report to the Home Secretary on 19 January and it was published on 21 January 2016. The Report is available on the Report page on this website.

https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/

 

[luiz]

Well, George Galloway stated on Press TV that Israel was probably behind it:


Link to video.

So... I'd say probably yes.

Galloway also probably thinks the Jews are responsible for AIDS, unemployment, all wars, and sour milk.

Sorry, not Jews, Israelis. Because Galloway is not an anti-semite, no way, he's just a critic of the Israeli government. As are his sympathizers. Very decent human beings, all of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well he isn't an anti-semite, no, why would you think he was?

Besides, arabs are semites too

 

[Mouthwash]

Besides, arabs are semites too

Is this serious?

 

[Kyriakos]

Is this serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Semitic group includes arabs.

It is like saying that those who are anti-german are anti-european.

 

[Mouthwash]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Semitic group includes arabs.

It is like saying that those who are anti-german are anti-european.

Would respond to this but Park did it better: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13298434&postcount=27

 

[luiz]

Well he isn't an anti-semite, no, why would you think he was?

Of course not, what an absurd idea. So he happens to think that the Jews Israelis are responsible for all that's bad in the world, even killing a dissident Russian spy, but that's just normal criticism of the state of Israel.

Galloway is a very good human being, as are all his fanboys admirers.

 

[Evie]

In criminal justice there is either proven guilt, or lack of it - and in this case suspect should be considered innocent. If they make formal conclusion that there is a "strong probability" that suspect (for example) is guilty in murder and send person to jail basing on it, it's absurd.

And in science, probability usually measured in numbers. "Strong probability" is neither here nor there - it's more suitable for journalism.

AHEM. IN criminal justice, there is proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Which is, in fact, a degree of probability, specifically the degree of probability where belief in any alternate theory would be seen as unreasonable given the evidence. Not impossible, mind you, but unreasonable.

Absolute proof of guilt is an extremely rare thing, and if THAT was the level of proof we demanded, we would almost never put anyone in jail (or execute them in silly countries). In short: you're wrong, they're right. Criminal guilt is probabilistic.

Beyond which, that's only for criminal guilt, and only because criminal trials have the possibility of depriving one of their freedom (or, in silly countries, life). Given that your most fundamental rights are at stake, the standard of evidence is very high. In civil courts, commissions of inquiry and the like, where what's at stake is money or reputation, all that's necessary to determine someone is likely responsible for another human being's death is proof by balance of probability: proof that it's more likely than not that you were responsible for their death.

 

[red_elk]

AHEM. IN criminal justice, there is proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Which is, in fact, a degree of probability, specifically the degree of probability where belief in any alternate theory would be seen as unreasonable given the evidence. Not impossible, but unreasonable.

Absolute proof of guilt is an extremely rare thing, and if THAT was the level of proof we demanded, we would almost never put anyone in jail (or execute them in silly countries).

In short: you're wrong, they're right. Guilt is probabilistic.

No, I don't require guilt to be proven with 100% accuracy as mathematical theorem. If you think I do, you are another one of several people here who misunderstood what I said.

 

[Evie]

If several people misunderstood you, maybe the problem is with how you phrased what you said?

In any event, as I said in my edit, you're misapplying the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. No, we do NOT need that level of proof to say one person is responsible for the death of another.

The increased burden of the proof in criminal trials is due to the freedom and/or life of the accused being at stake. It takes a lot of proof to deprive someone of their freedom. When only money or reputation are at stake (civil trial, government inquiries, etc), the stakes are much lower, and the burden of the proof is also much lower - you're only looking to figure out what is most likely, not what you can prove beyond reasonable doubt.