Absolute shocker

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Peppino Impastato said:

They do to his fkn lawyer though don't they, and they don't get to decide that's the murder weapon they need to prove it

That's what the OPCW is for. And they don't hand physical evidence to a defence lawyer and let him do what he wants with it.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's what the OPCW is for. And they don't hand physical evidence to a defence lawyer and let him do what he wants with it.

Omg.  I give up.  

[lichtgilphead]

40 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm pretty sure even in a criminal trial the prosecution don't have to hand the murder weapon over to the accused for examination.

 

32 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's what the OPCW is for. And they don't hand physical evidence to a defence lawyer and let him do what he wants with it.

Obviously none of us are aware of the exact ptrovisions relating to chemical weapons.

However, in most criminal prosecutions where the offence is proved by analysis of a sample (food, animal feed, fertilisers, water quality etc) there is an obligation on the sampling officer to divide the sampled portion into 3 (or sometimes 4) parts. One part is given to the potential defendant to allow him to carry out his own analysis.

[Peppino Impastato]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Obviously none of us are aware of the exact ptrovisions relating to chemical weapons.

However, in most criminal prosecutions where the offence is proved by analysis of a sample (food, animal feed, fertilisers, water quality etc) there is an obligation on the sampling officer to divide the sampled portion into 3 (or sometimes 4) parts. One part is given to the potential defendant to allow him to carry out his own analysis.

Exactly. The UK can hardly go it was definitely Russia cause we say so just take our word for it honest.  

[welshbairn]

38 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Obviously none of us are aware of the exact ptrovisions relating to chemical weapons.

However, in most criminal prosecutions where the offence is proved by analysis of a sample (food, animal feed, fertilisers, water quality etc) there is an obligation on the sampling officer to divide the sampled portion into 3 (or sometimes 4) parts. One part is given to the potential defendant to allow him to carry out his own analysis.

It's a bit different when the defence will do all their analysis behind a border and refuse to allow suspects or witnesses to be questioned.

[John Lambies Doos]

Putin demanding an apology

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Putin demanding an apology

Do it then, you don't want him angry.

[John Lambies Doos]

Do it then, you don't want him angry.

Up to the people who made the accusation imo. I'm staying well out of this one.

[lichtgilphead]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's a bit different when the defence will do all their analysis behind a border and refuse to allow suspects or witnesses to be questioned.

So, do you now accept the principle that under provisions of comparable UK law, the defence is allowed a part of the sample?

Second question for you . If I ask the public analyst to tell me whether some whisky is genuine or fake, he asks me to provide him with some product I know to be genuine so he can compare them. If this material is only produced in Russia, how did Porton Down get a reference sample?

 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

So, do you now accept the principle that under provisions of comparable UK law, the defence is allowed a part of the sample?

Second question for you . If I ask the public analyst to tell me whether some whisky is genuine or fake, he asks me to provide him with some product I know to be genuine so he can compare them. If this material is only produced in Russia, how did Porton Down get a reference sample?

 

1. Yes of course, but under strict conditions of control I assume, you seem to know more about this than me.

2. I'm quite sure that Porton Down has produced samples of Novichik to look for possible antidotes and protections as allowed under international law. If not they will have access to the OPCW data. 

[lichtgilphead]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm quite sure that Porton Down has produced samples of Novichik to look for possible antidotes and protections as allowed under international law. If not they will have access to the OPCW data. 

If Porton Down had produced Novichik, it would be British Novichik. If it is identical to Russian Novichik, how can it be proved that the Novichik used in Salisbury originated in Russia?

If it's not identical, how can it be used as a reference sample? It would be like giving the analyst a genuine bottle of Bells & asking him to use it to determine whether or not your sample was Bruichladdich.

[welshbairn]

19 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If Porton Down had produced Novichik, it would be British Novichik. If it is identical to Russian Novichik, how can it be proved that the Novichik used in Salisbury originated in Russia?

If it's not identical, how can it be used as a reference sample? It would be like giving the analyst a genuine bottle of Bells & asking him to use it to determine whether or not your sample was Bruichladdich.

As I said earlier Porton Down said this weeks ago, All they could confirm was that it was a type of weapon developed in Russia, there was no way to identify the lab where this particular sample was produced. The case against Russia as far as I know it is in three parts, circumstantial evidence as it's the only country known to have produced the nerve agent for military use. 2. The declared intention of Putin to kill traitors abroad and his political lackeys giving him legal authority to do so, along with the previous example of Litivenko and a string of of other murders on UK soil.  3. There is said to be other intelligence that was strong enough even for Putin friendly Hungary to kick out a Russian diplomat. 

[Lurkst]

28 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If Porton Down had produced Novichik, it would be British Novichik. If it is identical to Russian Novichik, how can it be proved that the Novichik used in Salisbury originated in Russia?

If it's not identical, how can it be used as a reference sample? It would be like giving the analyst a genuine bottle of Bells & asking him to use it to determine whether or not your sample was Bruichladdich.

Sure Glen's Vodka would be a more appropriate analogy?...

 

[D.A.F.C]

Maybe he just got stung by a bee?

[lichtgilphead]

41 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

As I said earlier Porton Down said this weeks ago, All they could confirm was that it was a type of weapon developed in Russia, there was no way to identify the lab where this particular sample was produced. The case against Russia as far as I know it is in three parts, circumstantial evidence as it's the only country known to have produced the nerve agent for military use. 2. The declared intention of Putin to kill traitors abroad and his political lackeys giving him legal authority to do so, along with the previous example of Litivenko and a string of of other murders on UK soil.  3. There is said to be other intelligence that was strong enough even for Putin friendly Hungary to kick out a Russian diplomat. 

So, your view now appears to be:

1) The analysis proves nothing about the origin of the 'Novichik' even though the Foreign Secretary appeared on national TV and said tthe exact opposite

2) The UK are right to refuse to allow any other party (Russia or OPCW or another neutral organisation) to confirm that the substance is Novichik

3) All the "case against Russia" is circumstantial

Well, that's me convinced.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

So, your view now appears to be:

1) The analysis proves nothing about the origin of the 'Novichik' even though the Foreign Secretary appeared on national TV and said tthe exact opposite

2) The UK are right to refuse to allow any other party (Russia or OPCW or another neutral organisation) to confirm that the substance is Novichik

3) All the "case against Russia" is circumstantial

Well, that's me convinced.

1. I said Boris lies or blags every time he opens his mouth. He's been studying Trump closely for the last 2 years.

2. Eh?? The OPCW expect to give their results by the end of the week or early next week.

3. We have modus operandi as well as circumstantial evidence. Other intelligence is not available to us but it convinced Putin fan Trump to kick out 60 Russians. We also have no credible motive for any other actor doing it.

[lichtgilphead]

1) Yes. You and I know that Boris is a liar. Why does the UK media seem ignorant of this fact?

2) Apologies. I had missed the fact that the UK had invited OPCW to test a sample. I fully expect them to confirm that what they have been given is a Novichok. How do you expect this second analysis to show that the substance was produced by the Russians?

3) What modus operandi? As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that a Novichok has been used in this fashion. Lots of countries (including the UK) have overtly & covertly used other chemical weapons in the past. Your final point re "credible motives" is purely circumstantial.

Edited to add: Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that it couldn't have been Russia. I'm just not at all convinced by the "evidence"  provided by the UK government, and note with interest that UK  Government ministers have been proved to be liars about this matter. 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

1) Yes. You and I know that Boris is a liar. Why does the UK media seem ignorant of this fact?

2) Apologies. I had missed the fact that the UK had invited OPCW to test a sample. I fully expect them to confirm that what they have been given is a Novichok. How do you expect this second analysis to show that the substance was produced by the Russians?

3) What modus operandi? As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that a Novichok has been used in this fashion. Lots of countries (including the UK) have overtly & covertly used other chemical weapons in the past. Your final point re "credible motives" is purely circumstantial.

Edited to add: Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that it couldn't have been Russia. I'm just not at all convinced by the "evidence"  provided by the UK government, and note with interest that UK  Government ministers have been proved to be liars about this matter. 

2. I don't, as I've said 3 times before on this thread I think.

3. Litinvenko. The only countries I've heard found to have used chemo/bio/nuclear weapons covertly have been Russia and Israel. Israel were caught and had to send the antidote out to Jordan ASAP to get their agent released.

[Peppino Impastato]

12 hours ago, welshbairn said:

It's a bit different when the defence will do all their analysis behind a border and refuse to allow suspects or witnesses to be questioned.

It's alright for the UK to do that though eh.  The world should just take our word for it.  Remind me whereabouts in Iraq they found the WMD?

[Peppino Impastato]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

2. I don't, as I've said 3 times before on this thread I think.

3. Litinvenko. The only countries I've heard found to have used chemo/bio/nuclear weapons covertly have been Russia and Israel. Israel were caught and had to send the antidote out to Jordan ASAP to get their agent released.

And the UK and USA among others