Alleged Russian assassins on TV

[Retsdon]

Back in about 1981or so I worked  (zero hours contract they'd call it now) for a solicitors in Brixton for about 6 months. As can be imagined, their business was chiefly criminal law, and my main job was to trot along to court and sit behind our client's barrister throughout the case and report back. There were other things, but basically it was to act as the brief's general factotum. And it was interesting - I got to see the majesty of the British Justice System in action. I mention this because the whole Salisbury thing reminds me of a typical criminal case in the Inner London Sessions. You could sit there for three days while each side brought out witnesses, made statements, questioned each other, etc ,etc and at the end of the day it would be anyone's guess what the actual truth of what had happened was. The police would lie, the witnesses would lie, the client would lie and at the end of it all the poor jury had to make a stab at who to believe. What made it so difficult was that although everyone lied nobody really lied completely. On both sides it would be a truth hedged around with lies or a lie hedged around with truths and you had to basically guess which was which.

And that's how the Salisbury thing strikes me. 

[henry d]

13 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

<snipped> On both sides it would be a truth hedged around with lies or a lie hedged around with truths and you had to basically guess which was which.

And that's how the Salisbury thing strikes me. 

Don`t forget the jurors who made up their minds as soon as they see the defendant...

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

 On both sides it would be a truth hedged around with lies or a lie hedged around with truths and you had to basically guess which was which.

And that's how the Salisbury thing strikes me. 

Indeed.

The problem with making an immediate assumption of guilt, is the fact you have committed yourself to a path.

It could be said, in the case of the courts, that, the defendant is there for a very good reason, not so much the judge, but certainly a jury, not being privy to the defendants history, would make the assumption there is a very good reason why the defendant is in that court ?

Or if the defendants criminal past was revealed pre-emptively, it could be assumed that they were guilty, because they had 'form'
In the case of our laws, in many cases this would preclude a fair trial.

In the matter of Salisbury, and certainly with all conspiracy theories aside, the IMMEDIATE assumption was that the head of Russian government was responsible.
This is a fair assessment, and because of 'form' could very likely be true.

What you dont do, and this works in all aspects of British law.
Is not only apportion blame, before the victim has even been diagnosed/assessed, but tell the world via media that you 'know' who the culprit is, and ask your suspected culprit to 'just admit it' !
Once you have gone down this dubious path, you are then in the unenviable position of having to make the evidence implicate the culprit you have already hung drawn and quartered.
This story, with its complex plot, strikes me as just such an attempt to build the story to match the crime.
The crime to match the defendant already found guilty.

 

5 minutes ago, henry d said:

Don`t forget the jurors who made up their minds as soon as they see the defendant...

Exactly.

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

Don`t forget the jurors who made up their minds as soon as they see the defendant...

Or the fact our justice system is heavily weighted to the defendant walking free, the weight of evidence is often disputed, but Blackstone's formulation says, "it is better that 10 guilty men escape than one innocent suffer" or something along those lines.

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

It could be said, in the case of the courts, that, the defendant is there for a very good reason, not so much the judge, but certainly a jury, not being privy to the defendants history, would make the assumption there is a very good reason why the defendant is in that court ?

I'm sure it was frequently the case that there was a very good reason why the defendant was in that court - but sometimes not at that particular time. As one bloke said to me one time, 'I may be a thief, but I'm not a stupid thief!" complaining bitterly that the DS had fitted him up. Of course, 'he would say that, wouldn't he', but sometimes you had the feeling that the client was almost certainly telling the truth for once. But mostly it was just a lottery.

 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

What you dont do, and this works in all aspects of British law.
Is not only apportion blame, before the victim has even been diagnosed/assessed, but tell the world via media that you 'know' who the culprit is, and ask your suspected culprit to 'just admit it' !

 I agree 100 percent with this too. And it's dumb to boot, because any evidence that you subsequently present will be tainted. But the thing is we simply don't know. We have evidence, but like the evidence against our 'stupid' thief client, can you trust the people giving the narrative into which the evidence is supposed to fit? On that score I had to be amused when a decade or more after the Brixton gig my mother got called up for jury service. My mother, God rest her, was a card-carrying Conservative, golf club ex-captaining, WI organizing, Meals on Wheelser... and she came away from that Crown Court with a whole different view of the police force. I can't remember the details now, but she utterly outraged that a policemen would perjure himself to secure a conviction against someone he knew was innocent, but apparently that was the unanimous consensus of the jury. Am I saying that the police always lie? Of course not. But it's only prudent to look at all evidence and how and why it is presented, with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Gordon R]

I am bemused as to why we are comparing the case to a criminal investigation / trial. There is little, if any comparison. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Police should have investigated this, concluded that there was a case to answer, obtained an international arrest warrant, arrested the suspects once Russia had kindly extradited them? Russia would demand that the evidence be shown to them to judge whether extradition was justified. As we refuse to give them the evidence, it would never happen.

It is naïve to think of the possibility that this would happen. Why can't the conspiracy theorists just accept the Russians did it and will get away with it. That is the reality.

[Rewulf]

28 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am bemused as to why we are comparing the case to a criminal investigation / trial. There is little, if any comparison. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Police should have investigated this, concluded that there was a case to answer, obtained an international arrest warrant, arrested the suspects once Russia had kindly extradited them? Russia would demand that the evidence be shown to them to judge whether extradition was justified. As we refuse to give them the evidence, it would never happen.

It is naïve to think of the possibility that this would happen. Why can't the conspiracy theorists just accept the Russians did it and will get away with it. That is the reality.

Because it IS a criminal investigation, and the police ARE investigating it.
Well ,sort of , the fact that before the investigation is in any way concluded, we have had a trial and sentenced the culprit (Putin) to a sentence of ' You are a very naughty boy'..again, is a little odd no ?

Gordon, if you were investigating a crime, and you had a pretty good idea of who had committed it.
Would your first course of action, before all the evidence has been gathered, before you even knew exactly what crime had been  committed, name your culprit in the media, not your SUSPECT, the CULPRIT to the crime.
If our government hadnt done this, I would be far more inclined to believe them ,and 100 % less sceptical of further developments.

They were far too eager to get the media circus on the road, a course detrimental to a safe investigation and conclusion.
In this respect, they played right into Putins hands.

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I am bemused as to why we are comparing the case to a criminal investigation / trial. There is little, if any comparison. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Police should have investigated this, concluded that there was a case to answer, obtained an international arrest warrant, arrested the suspects once Russia had kindly extradited them? Russia would demand that the evidence be shown to them to judge whether extradition was justified. As we refuse to give them the evidence, it would never happen.

It is naïve to think of the possibility that this would happen. Why can't the conspiracy theorists just accept the Russians did it and will get away with it. That is the reality.

Correct Gordon!

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

Because it IS a criminal investigation, and the police ARE investigating it.
Well ,sort of , the fact that before the investigation is in any way concluded, we have had a trial and sentenced the culprit (Putin) to a sentence of ' You are a very naughty boy'..again, is a little odd no ?

Gordon, if you were investigating a crime, and you had a pretty good idea of who had committed it.
Would your first course of action, before all the evidence has been gathered, before you even knew exactly what crime had been  committed, name your culprit in the media, not your SUSPECT, the CULPRIT to the crime.
If our government hadnt done this, I would be far more inclined to believe them ,and 100 % less sceptical of further developments.

 

The mistake is to compare this to a normal crime. The alleged culprits are two Russian comedians. Putin did not bring the stuff into the country and leave it smeared on handles or lying around. Someone else did all that. Putin might have instigated it, he may have sanctioned it, he may know little about it. You are treating this as a criminal investigation into two people - it isn't. It is about whether a foreign country has sought to commit murder in the UK. The two clowns are the small picture. The Government has to deal with the bigger picture.

If people genuinely believe that this is a conspiracy - let them say who exactly did do it. Don't hide behind "there are plenty of countries who would benefit etc." .

[Rewulf]

37 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The mistake is to compare this to a normal crime. The alleged culprits are two Russian comedians. Putin did not bring the stuff into the country and leave it smeared on handles or lying around. Someone else did all that. Putin might have instigated it, he may have sanctioned it, he may know little about it. You are treating this as a criminal investigation into two people - it isn't. It is about whether a foreign country has sought to commit murder in the UK. The two clowns are the small picture. The Government has to deal with the bigger picture.

If people genuinely believe that this is a conspiracy - let them say who exactly did do it. Don't hide behind "there are plenty of countries who would benefit etc." .

Im not for one moment saying the culprits are the (alleged) two oafs that got filmed ect, even if they did poison Skripal et al, they would have been acting on the orders of someone higher up, and possibly someone more intelligent, which wouldnt be hard.
And OK its not a 'normal' crime, you could call it an act of war if you want, or a diplomatic incident ?

But lets be very clear on culprits, the media and government mouthpieces keep saying it was Russia, Russians did the deed ect..
But the order  would  have come from a single , or small group of people, with  the finger usually gets pointing at Putin.
So its not the 'Russians' or the Russian people, its one Russian, but the media likes that plural  term, its sounds more threatening.

Put it this way, if I was Putin, and his men had screwed up the mission so badly, (prostitutes and cannabis while at work?. 🤣Then thrown out the hotel in the morning,  good way to keep a low profile whilst committing international assassination !) I would have personally fed them to my pet sharks on their return.

Ive said it before, and still no one has countered it - Ukraine, they have ,as the Yanks call it ,probable cause.
British government involvement ?
Damage limitation when the Ukrainians messed up, not wanting to cause embarrassment and pain to a future NATO and trade partner ?
So they played along with the 'Russians' theory/accusation.
You would have thought Ukraine would have added their disgruntled voice to the condemnation of barbaric Putin ?
But a suspicious silence on the matter from Kiev.

 

[Gordon R]

Speculation about who else did it is pointless. The Police have two suspects, with evidence.

There is not one scrap of evidence that another other party / country is involved, but still the finger points. Is that not worse than pointing the finger at Russia? If it isn't, the World has gone mad.

[Vince Green]

5 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I am bemused as to why we are comparing the case to a criminal investigation / trial. There is little, if any comparison. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Police should have investigated this, concluded that there was a case to answer, obtained an international arrest warrant, arrested the suspects once Russia had kindly extradited them? Russia would demand that the evidence be shown to them to judge whether extradition was justified. As we refuse to give them the evidence, it would never happen.

It is naïve to think of the possibility that this would happen. Why can't the conspiracy theorists just accept the Russians did it and will get away with it. That is the reality.

Yep!  100% Gordon. Nobody doubts it, you would think but then I listened to a radio phone in on LBC  where people were saying weird stuff like we are just stitching the Russians etc etc.

It takes me back to my student days in the 70s when every time I sat down in the College refectory somebody would sit beside you and start telling you that Russia was a wonderful peaceful country and sooooo very misunderstood. USA and UK were the real enemies and why don't I come to a meeting...…...

[oowee]

Reading this thread helps me to understand the messed up world, that some believe they live in. I compare that to the place where I live and I know where I would rather be. Sure there is a lot of detail yet to be worked out and no doubt the story will evolve over time but at least it starts from a perspective of reality. It looks like some start with a joint and let their mind create a vision based on some messed up view of life. 

 

[Gordon R]

I despair that some have a very low opinion of the British justice system, cast doubt on whether the Police ever tell the truth, think all witnesses lie, think briefs lie etc.

There are people who lie, in any walk of life, but some are happy to believe the worst in all these people, but will happily believe an outrageous conspiracy at the drop of a hat. When it comes to conspiracy, none of the people peddling the various theories ever lie. In contrast to all other walks of life, they are dead straight.

In the trade we call them nutters.

 

[Mungler]

When we called out the Russians was it knee jerk?

You have a rather hard to come by and unique weapon: Novochok. The person affected happened to have fallen out big time with the leader of the only place in the world that could have this unique weapon and that leader has significant ‘previous’ for this sort of caper (similar fact evidence for you criminal law fiends).

In addition, we don’t know what evidence HMG had when they initially called out the Russians but it wouldn’t surprise me if the CCTV now disclosed and the flight logs for 2 Russians on a weekend trip and who booked 3 separate return flights from 3 different airports would have been quickly available. 

Well that appears to be enough to point the finger and go loud to the world on what we’re all thinking.

And fortunately Russia hasn’t disappointed us in its reply and ‘complete defence’ to the allegations 😝

Factor in the immediate test of who do I believe? Think what you will of our democratically elected government and the BBC, but if your immediate position is to favour information or a position put forward by the totalitarian Russian government and the State Media propaganda machine / broadcaster Russia Today, well that’s upto you. 

On here, the point is / was that there were a few whose immediate reaction was to believe Putin and to blame our government and claim conspiracy / false flag - that is the polar nutty reverse of alleging those who blamed Russia unfairly jumped to a conclusion.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Mungler

[Hamster]

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I despair that some have a very low opinion of the British justice system, cast doubt on whether the Police ever tell the truth, think all witnesses lie, think briefs lie etc.

There are people who lie, in any walk of life, but some are happy to believe the worst in all these people, but will happily believe an outrageous conspiracy at the drop of a hat. When it comes to conspiracy, none of the people peddling the various theories ever lie. In contrast to all other walks of life, they are dead straight.

In the trade we call them nutters.

 

I don't believe every conspiracy theory at the drop of a hat, I've already named a few popular ones which don't stand the test of logical scrutiny including those that would portray the Muslim extremists phenomenon as fictitious and a non threat, but this (and the other) one are full of comical as well as physical holes. 

Also, repeat, we have no "evidence" just pictures and words from the accuser (with previous). Evidence is CCTV pictures showing these two entering the home of the Skirpals, evidence is CCTV pictures showing them carrying a bomb/leak proof object into their cheap hotel room that world nerve agent specialist physicians immediately recognise as the standard industry vessel for carriage outside military labs, evidence is either of the Skirpals dying from this military grade powder/perfume mist on contact inside 2 minutes (why use it when it doesn't work in other words), evidence is several people in and around the areas the victims visited being taken severely ill, evidence is nerve agent symptoms suffered by people coming into contact with their hotel room which had "traces" of novichok, evidence is the cat and the hamster not being destroyed but presented to the world and in particular the Russians and allowed to be examined, evidence is independent and fully transparent experts being allowed access to all the victims and their medical data in order to even ascertain whether Novichok was the substance to begin with, the list for worthwhile evidence is almost endless and what baffles is why the government would not allow them to be released so at least the theorising and doubts could be put to bed and we could properly start to address dealing with the accused. 

We have been shown "evidence" before in the form of "expert" words and fuzzy black and white aerial pictures of compounds.................tis not enough for some people anymore. So yes I do at least agree with one aspect you touched on, we cannot trust those with previous. 

[Mungler]

If you go to any Court there is no such thing as empirical evidence, that only exists in science.

Also, there is rarely a signed confession backed with an eye witness account, cctv, dna, expert evidence etc.

Often it’s a matter of weighing up what’s in front of you, what’s likely, what’s not and then picking a winner.

If looking at Salisbury you still prefer your view that it’s all a big UK government conspiracy against Russia then you should recognise the natural bias that exists within you. My bias which I admit is that my default setting is to prefer the evidence of a democracy that is open to scrutiny, has a system where there is an opposition party and a free press (the polar opposite of Russia).

Just out of interest what’s your position on North Korea? 

 

[Hamster]

26 minutes ago, Mungler said:

If you go to any Court there is no such thing as empirical evidence, that only exists in science.

Also, there is rarely a signed confession backed with an eye witness account, cctv, dna, expert evidence etc.

Often it’s a matter of weighing up what’s in front of you, what’s likely, what’s not and then picking a winner.

If looking at Salisbury you still prefer your view that it’s all a big UK government conspiracy against Russia then you should recognise the natural bias that exists within you. My bias which I admit is that my default setting is to prefer the evidence of a democracy that is open to scrutiny, has a system where there is an opposition party and a free press (the polar opposite of Russia).

Just out of interest what’s your position on North Korea? 

 

You got it right here.  

You couldn't be more wrong here if you tried, it is perhaps your natural bias that choses to ignore the very many times I have spoken against "conspiracy" theories that would lend support to my general view of matters.

I have no personal NK friends nor ever visited but based on factual records of Americans destroying that country down to the last remaining structure and killing millions of civilians with gay abandon, and also based on my experience of my country of birth being deliberately misrepresented and wilfully demonised (beyond reasonable merit, meaning I accept they have their faults) by same (and allies) I make the judgement that they're not nearly as evil as the West likes to make out. If you put yourself into their shoes you too would seek every conceivable means of self defence to prevent a repeat. 

 

[Mungler]

So, did Kim Jong get 11 holes in 1?

Our government says he didn’t, the free press said he didn’t, the North Korean government (and again I use that term loosely) says he did, the North Korean press said he did so where do we go?

Applying all of the above and the remote possibility and probability of 11 holes in one I make my choice.

 

[Hamster]

2 minutes ago, Mungler said:

So, did Kim Jong get 11 holes in 1?

Our government says he didn’t, the free press said he didn’t, the North Korean government (and again I use that term loosely) says he did, the North Korean press said he did so where do we go?

Applying all of the above and the remote possibility and probability of 11 holes in one I make my choice.

 

Sorry I don't understand ?!

 

[Mungler]

1 minute ago, Hamster said:

Sorry I don't understand ?!

 

 

I think you do.

It’s a worked example on how and what we choose to believe, applying logic, evidence, assessing the balance of reporting and probability. 

[Hamster]

3 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

I think you do.

It’s a worked example on how and what we choose to believe, applying logic, evidence, assessing the balance of reporting and probability. 

Honestly Mungler sorry I don't. 

This is a current up to date development on Iran whereby Twitter has shut down all pro Iranian accounts, the video discusses the powers and reasons behind it and their implications. Essentially they are literally controlling what you and I can read and listen to before making our minds up. This is the very apparatus of "Freedom and Democracy" that you keep alluding to and upholding as worthy of listening to : 

 

[henry d]

Sorry what? Even I got that!

[Mungler]

Sorry, I don’t do ‘Twitter’ and have taken no interest in it. I see there’s a You Tube video about it all / made it out and so the dark forces haven’t got to You Tube yet 😀

Have these dark forces also shut down all other means of communication? It’s a wonder anyone knows about it.

One of the people I work with has just come back from Iran - great place apparently as long as you don’t upset the Supreme Leader or try to buck the system.

We had an interesting debate - would you rather live in a shanty town in South Africa under a true democracy or live in what is a totalitarian regime like Iran but have free health / education and it’s safe to walk the streets but you are at the mercy of a select few, there’s no justice system as we know it, there’s no freedom of speech / expression and you could be disappeared if you buck the trend.

It turns out that everyone in Iran is like us worrying about what’s in front of them and where their kids are going to school. Indeed, if I was faced with the shanty town choice I’d take Iran all day long and keep my head down and gob shut like that population does.

I digress.

I do make the point that the North Korea example (above) is a comparable thought process to when assessing Salisbury and that’s why you ducked it. 

[Gordon R]

https://www.golf.com/golf-plus/behind-kim-jong-ils-famous-round-golf