Michael Chapman

PPP Chapter Four - Gordievsky's Lore The hounds at the front of the press pack following the Litvinenko scent on Sunday 19th November were the BBC, The Mail on Sunday (whose sister title The Daily Mail 'scooped' the story before, although its online archive for the 18th links to its coverage of the 21st November) and The Sunday Times. The Mail on Sunday claimed that various websites had fingered Litvinenko's contact at the Itsu Sushi Bar, Mario Scaramella, as a KGB spy. It also reported that Litvinenko's wife had been unhappy with the standard of her husband's medical treatment: Marina Litvinenko, 44, said she had repeatedly claimed that her husband Alexander had been deliberately targeted after a clandestine meeting with an underworld contact but that medical staff had ignored the claim, allowing his condition to worsen. A friend said: "She suspected from an early stage that her husband had been poisoned but the hospital staff weren't taking her seriously. "Had they tested for poison earlier, then maybe they could have done something to prevent him getting worse. Marina Litvinenko's account, unlike the BBC's, suggests that Litvinenko was hospitalized soon after being taken ill. The Sunday Times divulged the content of medical documents that it claimed to have examined. These papers stated that a toxicology test performed at Guys Hospital on Thursday the 16th November confirmed that Litvinenko had been poisoned with thallium. It would appear that the first casualty of 'cold war' is patient confidentiality. The Sunday Times, it seems, didn't want to be out done by the BBC: In an interview last week at his bedside in the cancer ward of Barnet hospital, where he was being treated under a different name, Litvinenko said he believed it was a murder plot to avenge his defection. Not only do we have a new motive for the attack but we also have this (questionable)desire for patient anonymity. Again, like the BBC, The Sunday Times interviewed celebrity defector, Oleg Gordievsky only their interview appeared to be more wide ranging. But rather than throwing more light on the circumstances surrounding Litvinenko's poisoning their discussion only seemed to spin a mist around them. The allegations reported previously in the BBC account are fleshed out and altered in some respects. Litvinenko was poisoned with tea by a former friend in a hotel (on Putin's orders apparently because of Litvinenko's constant taunts and insults in unspecified publications - murder motive number 3) just before he met Scaramella (a respectable man who is now in fear of his life according to Oleg). The incident apparently is too distressing for his wife to talk about (except to The Mail on Sunday it seems). What is most interesting though about this interview is Gordievsky's 'pathology' of the mundane events leading up to Litvinenko's hospitalisation (very little of which is corroborated elsewhere). He claims that 'his friend' began to feel ill before his meeting with Scaramella (in the afternoon). But later on in the conversation he appears to change his mind: According to Mr Gordievsky, Mr Litvinenko began to feel ill that evening. His wife called an ambulance. The crew thought that he had food poisoning and give him pills. Strange that paramedics would think themselves competent to diagnose one of the 200 or so diseases transmissable through food and that they had the appropriate remedy to hand. Was it at this stage, I wonder, that the Litvinenko's gave (and signed) a 'different' name on the incident sheet? But his condition deteriorated so the next morning they called an ambulance again. “It was only on the tenth day in hospital that the doctors realised it was not food poisoning..." Are we supposed to surmise from this that he was admitted to Barnet General on November 2nd (as opposed to 1st, 3rd, 4th or sometime around the middle of November as reported elswhere)? Was a false name given at A&E? Didn't A&E find out who Litvinenko's GP was? Wouldn't a 'different name' create problems for sourcing medical records? Wouldn't Barnet and General A&E have been told about foreigners trying to get free treatment on the NHS - or is the B&G Trust very relaxed about such matters? And wouldn't a 'different name' cover story make Litvinenko's admission impossible to challenge? Questions, so many questions... When queried about the length of time it appeared to take for the police to get involved, Gordievsky had more interesting rationalisations: Why did it take so long to report the poisoning to the police? “Because British doctors are not familiar with such poisons. Well, your average GP PROBABLY wouldn't have direct experience of thallium intoxication, granted, but would almost certainly be aware of its symptoms and effects and would refer a possible sufferer to a specialist in this area commonly called a TOXICOLOGIST (another unfortunate inference waiting to be drawn here is that this kind of intoxication was just another existential hazard that Soviet citizens had to put up with). Gordievsky continues: He went to the doctor... (What? I thought he was in hospital.) He went to the doctor, who gave him antibiotics. His wife and son kept telling the doctor that he had been poisoned, but the doctor said it was just a reaction to the antibiotics... The issue of the date of Litvinenko's admission to Barnet General has never been resolved. This, and the claim that he used a different name for at least part of his stay there, throws into doubt various accounts of his treatment. But the ramifications don't end there. ONE IS FORCED TO ASK WHETHER LITVINENKO WAS EVER ADMITTED TO BARNET GENERAL HOSPITAL AT ALL

Simmo, As my Big Issue seller tells me,'never allow scholarship to get in the way of common sense.' You'll have to be some sort of intellectual Houdini to get out of the knots you're tying yourself in. PS Winston used the term 'appeasement' as code for something much nastier. In reality there never was a 'policy of appeasement.' It's what pseuds call a'post hoc rationalisation.' PPS My Big Issue seller tells me you won't go far wrong if you read 'Kim' and 'Greenmantle.' As long as you don't tie yourself up in intellectual knots beforehand that is... Regards, Chappers

PPP Chapter Three - The BBC The discrepancies in the reporting of Litvinenko's poisoning didn't start with the BBC (as you shall see below) but the Corporation's performance on Sunday 19th November was, by any measure, quite extraordinary (looking back that is of course: at the time even a sleuth as seasoned as Columbo wouldn't have felt more than a little non-plussed). The Sunday Times of the 19th November peered through the fog of the circulation war and defintely saw a female 'contact' with Litvinenko at the Itsu Sushi Bar (The Times repeated this assertion the following day). The Mail on Sunday demoted Scaramella from Professor of Environmental Law to a member of the 'underworld' and also claimed that the document that this crook waved at Litvinenko (while the latter was either drinking his soup or eating his fish) was not an FSB 'hit list' (that contained the names of both men according to other press reports), but a register of FSB officers that had participated in the murder of dissident journalist, Anna Politovskaya. By comparison, The Mail On Sunday's other revelation that Litvinenko was not admitted to Barnet General Hospital until 48 hours after his encounter with Scaramella at Itsu's, seems trivial. However, it was the snagging of this seemingly innocuous loose thread on our gumshoe's cuff button that led to the unravelling of the whole fabric of the Litvinenko plot. But let's get back to the Beeb. The main thing that strikes you now when you review the BBC's web output for Sunday 19th November was how much ahead of the game they appeared to be. And, only slightly less worthy of comment, is how much they appeared to be holding back. Trawling through the BBC web archive of the day Columbo gets the old familiar feeling of the managed news story. Andrei Lugovoy, Litvinenko's old FSB buddy (and now deemed the chief suspect in his demise) had yet to debut in this sordid tale when this sensational claim by Oleg Gordievsky (another Russian secret service defector and 'friend' of Litvinenko) appeared on the BBC website on the 19th November: He told the BBC he believed Mr Litvinenko was poisoned when he drank a cup of tea at the flat of an old Russian friend - before the lunchtime meeting at the sushi restaurant. The only tension in this assertion with the current 'official' version of Litvinenko's poisoning is the reported location ('flat' as opposed to 'hotel). But that's only the beginning: look at this quote from a doctor who treated Litvinenko: Dr Andres Virchis, a doctor from Barnet Hospital who earlier treated Mr Litvinenko, said his bone marrow had failed and he was not producing any normal immune cells. That was "presumably as the effect of the thallium or even potentially some other unknown substances that we're not aware of", he said. Virchis's inference that the thallium diagnosis might be uncertain seemed to surprise Professor John Henry (remember the name!) the eminent toxicologist who was, according to most accounts, treating Litvinenko at University College Hospital. When quizzed by the news anchor on BBC News 24 on this point Henry stated not only that the presence of thallium had been CONFIRMED in Litvinenko's blood stream but that it was the ONLY agent responsible for his condition. Professor Henry also gave an eyebrow raising respone when asked how much pain his patient was in: 'He's in a certain amount of pain but it's not massive...' (remember this detail too). Tucked away deep inside the web screed was yet another revelation just waiting to be missed by any mole eyed researcher: the BBC had actually interviewed Litvinenko some days earlier (talk about keeping your light under a bushel)! The only comment he made during that meeting that was reported is paraphrased thus on the BBC website: Speaking to the BBC last week, he said a contact had approached him to say they should talk, and they arranged to meet at a restaurant in Piccadilly. "He gave me some papers which contained some names - perhaps names of those who may have been involved in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya - and several hours after the meeting I started to feel sick." More accurately, the above text is a transcription of an interpreter's voice over of Litvinenko's remarks. Litvinenko actually spoke in Russian (a scratchy clip of this interivew is used in a report filed by Dominic Hughes). Why had the BBC waited 'some days' to broadcast what would have been a 'sensational' scoop? But there was something even more baffling in the same BBC report. A suggestion that the hiatus between Litvinenko's Itsu lunch and his eventual admission to Barnet General Hospital (on a stretcher) was more elastic than the '48 hours' The Mail On Sunday would have us believe: 'Two weeks later Mr Litvinenko was taken seriously ill and admitted to hospital. ' Is this what Litvinenko said on tape and is this why the BBC did not air it? (This post did not register @5.50 PM on June 4)

PPP Chapter Two - Prussian Blue The Litvinenko affair, which out Le Carre'd John Le Carre, was a gift to the Sunday's on the weekend that the story broke. Column yards were devoted to Scaramella, the mysterious Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Naples, the menu at the Itsu Sushi Bar and, of course, to Thalium, the deadly rare metal that had laid the defector spook low. During such national emergencies it is customary for the media to wheel out a recognised expert to speak with calm authority. So John Henry (remember the name), Emeritus Professor of Toxicology, (Imperial College & St Mary's Hospital Paddington) was rolled into the limelight. He declared that a 'sample' (its nature was unspecified) from Litvinenko had tested positive for Thalium Sulphate contamination on Thursday 16th November. In the light of this information Litvinenko's transfer from Barnet General to University College Hospital the very next day appeared timely and necessary. Although the hacks were muttering 'Sushi' and 'Thalium' in the same breath they weren't as yet pointing an accusing finger at the Neapolitan professor. He had apparently flown in to warn his friend Litvinenko that he was on the FSB hit list that he flourished excitedly during their lunch. Scaramella's name was on it too. Apparently both of them had angered the Kremlin by stating publicly that a branch of Russian intelligence was responsible for the murder of dissident journalist Anna Politovskaya. Like many, I suppose, I was wondering exactly what conclusions I was supposed to draw from all this. The inference appeard to me that Scaramella had surreptitiously and treacherously poisoned his 'friend.' But at the same time, our would be inferred assassin (who was also bizarrely on the very same hit list as his 'friend' and would be victim) also supplied a clear motive for the attack. Who was feeding this paradoxical information to the media? But in this puzzling saga at least Thalium appeared to be the universal constant. There could be no denying that it was a deadly substance. And, as I was to find out as I Googled and Wiki'ed away 'Thalium' 'Thalium Sulphate' & 'Radioactive Thalium', the operative word in the clause 'was a deadly substance' was WAS. It seems that the boffins had finally come up with an antidote (or 'chelator' in boffin speak) for all these variants of the metal: Radiogardese (FDA approved 2003). This drug, which is now available on prescription, is a refined derivative of a cruder compound that was also used to treat Thalium poisoning in the past. The specific detoxifying effect of that substance was recognized as far back as 30 years ago. However the substance itself, used in the manufacture of paint dye, has been around since the early 18th century. It is called Prussian Blue.

The Piccadilly Polonium Plot Chapter One - Miso Soup On the very day that this story broke I resolved to stay with it till the bitter end. But some narratives don't just end: they peter out and flare up and peter out again like charred logs in the grate. It was like that with flight BA 149 and so it is in the mysterious Litvinenko case. But the flare ups here are not confined to the grate - they're consuming the whole cottage. Just to remind you this story was broken to the world (except Russia) in the first edition of the Daily Mail dated Saturday November 18th (the 'quality' press followed up in their later editions). There was, at that time, virtual unanimity amongst the press about what had happened: that a former FSB agent turned defector, Alexander Litvinenko, had been poisoned with THALIUM after lunching with an Italian academic, Mario Scaramella, at the Itsu Sushi Bar in Piccadilly on Wednesday 1st November and that he had been admitted to his local hospital, Barnet General, the same evening. The eagle eyed and contrarians amongst you are already restless, your itchy trigger fingers poised over left click on your mice: 'that's not what happened at all...' For the moment all I'll say to that charge is that none of us can be sure about what actually happened (why else would we be debaing this here?) but we can be sure about what was REPORTED as having happened. More crucially, we can also be sure that key facts and events in the earliest reporting were either revised or airbrushed out of ALL later accounts. In the most recent rounds of this cold war Cluedo it is no longer Mario Scaramella (with the Thalium in the Sushi Bar) who is the main suspect but Andrei Lugovoi (with the Polonium in the Pine Bar). And you know what? Virtually nobody seems to have fookin' noticed this change. Virtually nobody notices because virtually nobody cares about facts. You see, the only people who care about facts are trainspotters and consulting actuaries whose brains are hardwired to exclude ideas - unlike post modernists whose brains are hard wired to ignore facts. Post modernists can hypothesise till the cows come home without any supporting evidence at all. Which is why, figuratively speaking, 'Derren Brown' has been able to run rings around them in the Litvinenko affair....

The Piccadilly Polonium Plot - The Prologue Sorry chaps but I just love to alliterate, so you'll just have to grin and bear it. I also love Columbo and Derren Brown (the self styled 'mentalist' entertainer). So, I'm going to try and find out who really killed Sasha Litvinenko by playing my favourite game - Columbo. That means I am not going to be a jejune, half witted, projecting, chip on both shoulders, liberal/lefty clown (did I miss anything?). Derren, of course, is formidable opposition. I have democratically elected to give his part to the UK media and any number of professional pundits, secret service 'experts' and very deep and dark disinformationalists (aka 'scholars'). Through a mixture of 'magic, misdirection and showmanship' they will attempt to throw you off the scent (watch out particularly for the misdirection bit: Derren's 'explanations' are his best tricks!). I really should be charging for this...

All in good time Gazzer: I promise I won't disappoint. You have to make allowances for my exponentially expanding ego. There will be a Viking funeral for Simmo's nonsense just as there was for the Reich. The 'Nero Order' is being drafted as we speak. But if you want your fireworks sooner rather than later, tune into the Litvinenko channel tongiht...

Looks like Andrei Lugovoi is trying to steal my thunder. Serves me right I suppose for showing off. I'd better get my skates on if I don't want to be out scooped by the Ruskie spook. So I'll be right back explaining who did what to whom after some brief messages from our sponsors. Keep your zappers in your pants!

I know what you mean, but I would not go as far as this. No, John, you don't have a clue what I mean. Your mission statement (to fit Churchill up), your failure even to mention the obvious leading suspect(s) in the Duke of Kent case and your evasive, inadequate reply to my question all make Operation Paget appear credible by comparison. I hear the steady drone of Lancasters coming to 'Coventrize' your argument... I think it would be fair to say you have a number of us intrigued, Michael. Certainly you can count me in. I'd like to see your cards. What've you got? In a similar spirit, I'd like to hear more from John about the motive he believes Churchill would have had for killing the Duke of Kent in 1942. By then the war party was firmly ensconced in power in Britain, with Churchill at the helm of the British State at War. I'm unaware of any significant, organized 'peace camp' in Britain by that stage in the war. Why, in your view, would Churchill have wanted the Duke's death so much? Sikorski was a very different case. His refusal to accept Allied propaganda about Katyn and his concurrence with Hitler's demand for a Red Cross Inquiry into the mass slaughter of Polish officers in eastern Poland was deeply embarrassing to the allied leaders. But what, in your view, was the threat posed by the Duke of Kent to Churchill and his interests? If I missed this in your presentation, please excuse me. I'm rather short of time at present and don't have time right now to re-read the thread. To explain Churchill’s motive we have to understand British foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s. As I said earlier, the main fear during this period was the spread of communism. After the First World War the political attitudes of people in Europe moved to the left. This was partly due to the perceived success of the government in the Soviet Union. The fortunes of left-wing parties improved during the 1920s. This was true of the UK. In 1923 Ramsay MacDonald formed a minority government. The Labour Party only lost office in 1924 after the Times and the Daily Mail published a letter written by Grigory Zinoviev, chairman of the Comintern in the Soviet Union. The Zinoviev Letter urged British communists to promote revolution through acts of sedition. The newspapers argued that MacDonald had been aware of this letter and had failed to do anything about it. In fact, the letter was a forgery and had been created by two of MI5's agents, Sidney Reilly and Arthur Maundy Gregory, and Major Joseph Ball, who later went to work for Conservative Central Office where he pioneered the idea of spin-doctoring. The media successfully portrayed the Labour Party as a subversive organization and the 1924 General Election was easily won by the Tories. During this period MI5 was under the control of the far right. Maxwell Knight was the key figure in this development. Knight was the former Director of Intelligence of the British Fascisti (BF), an organization established to counter the growing powers of the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement. In 1925 Vernon Kell, head of MI5 recruited Knight to work for the Secret Service Bureau. Knight played a significant role in helping to defeat the General Strike in 1926 and by the early 1930s was placed in charge of B5b, a unit that conducted the monitoring of political subversion. The left got another boost with the Great Depression that was triggered off by the 1929 Wall Street Crash. Whereas the Soviet Union enjoyed rapid economic growth the rest of Europe and the United States had to endure increasing levels of unemployment. It was no real surprise when the Labour Party won 288 seats in the 1929 General Election, making it the largest party in the House of Commons. MacDonald became Prime Minister again, but as before, he still had to rely on the support of the Liberal Party to hold onto power. MacDonald was soon turned (Blair is not the first person to betray the Labour Party) and he formed a National Government in 1931. This act of betrayal destroyed the Labour Party and ensured that the right governed the UK for the next 15 years. MacDonald was soon cast aside but the governments led by Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain continued to follow a foreign policy that was motivated by a desire to destroy the threat of socialism/communism. The Communist Party was fully aware of how the far right had taken over MI5 and MI6. They therefore instructed secret members of the party like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess, to join fascist front organizations such as Anglo-German Fellowship. It was because they were members of these organizations that they were recruited into the intelligence services. It also has to be remembered that the national press was very much under the control of the far right. In 1929 Lord Rothermere owned the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and the Evening News. His friend, Lord Beaverbrook, owned the Daily Express, Evening Standard and the Sunday Express. The Times and the Sunday Times were owned by John Jacob Astor. Geoffrey Dawson was appointed editor of the Times. In 1929 Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook joined forces to form the United Empire Party. Rothermere urged the Conservative Party to remove its leader, Stanley Baldwin, and replace him with Beaverbrook. Baldwin was considered not to be right-wing enough. However, this new political party split the vote and enabled Labour to win the 1929 General Election. The tactics changed after this election. Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Dawson used their influence to turn both the two main political parties, Labour and Conservative, to the right. Rothermere sold the Daily Mirror in 1931 and after that it became a newspaper of the centre-left. However, the Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Evening Standard and the Evening News, throughout the 1930s supported the agenda of the far right. This included support for Hitler in Nazi Germany. Rothermere gave open support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". Rothermere also had several meetings with Adolf Hitler and argued that the Nazi leader desired peace. In one article written in March, 1934 he called for Hitler to be given back land in Africa that had been taken as a result of the Versailles Treaty. The key issue was the Spanish Civil War that began in 1936. The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Evening Standard and the Evening News all urged that the British government should not give any help to the democratically elected republican government in its fight with the Spanish fascists. It followed their advice and with the help of German and Italian military forces, fascism was established in Spain and Portugal. Spain was the start of what became known as the Conservative “appeasement policy”. This was fully supported by Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Dawson. In fact, the recently published correspondence of Dawson shows that the media played an important role in developing this policy. The same is true of the correspondence and diaries of George VI. It shows that the king was playing a major role in the development of government foreign policy. So where does Winston Churchill fit in with this situation. Churchill lost office after the 1929 General Election. In 1931, when McDonald established the National Government, Churchill was excluded because he was considered too right-wing. The previous year he had published his book, Parliamentary Government and the Economic Problem. In the book he argued for the abandonment of universal suffrage and a return to a property franchise. Churchill had also upset people with his support for Mussolini’s fascist government in Italy. In 1933 Churchill described Mussolini as “the greatest lawgiver among men”. Some suspected him of wishing to become the "British Mussolini" while others suggested that Churchill was interested in forming a coalition government with Oswald Mosley. Churchill was also outspoken in his support for the British Empire opposed to the government policy of granting independence to India. Churchill argued that Ghandi "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back." Churchill was also a supporter of the pro-fascist Edward VIII during the Abdication Crisis. At the time, it was commonly believed that if the king won this struggle with the government, Baldwin would have been forced to resign. Edward VIII would then have then appointed Churchill as prime minister. Baldwin refused to back down and it was Edward who was forced to leave office. Not that it made much difference as George VI and Neville Chamberlain, the man who replaced Baldwin, both favoured a policy of appeasing Hitler in the hope he was head East. After the Abdication Crisis Churchill was a completely isolated political figure. His career appeared to be at an end. He was seen a political extremist who belonged to an earlier age. There was only one way back. That was to undermine the leadership of Neville Chamberlain. Although he had earlier supported the government’s appeasement policy, for example in 1936 and 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, he did an about turn and began to argue that Hitler needed to be confronted. He also argued that the best way to do this was to form an alliance with the Soviet Union. Churchill obtained little support from the Conservative Party for this policy. This is understandable as they still saw the Soviet Union as the main enemy. The only real support for Churchill came from the left-wing of the Labour Party. However, their support was only lukewarm as they knew that Churchill was a committed right-winger who had only taken this position in an attempt to gain a political advantage over Neville Chamberlain. Churchill would have remained an isolated figure but for Chamberlain’s mishandling of the negotiations with Hitler. The German leader became convinced that the Conservative government would never go to war over his attempts to expand the territory under his control. After all, the Conservative Party had made it clear that they shared the same objective, the destruction of communism in the Soviet Union. As we now know, Chamberlain had no intention of going to war over Poland. As I said earlier, Hitler had failed to grasp that Chamberlain and his right-wing government, was not a dictatorship and he was forced to declare war as a result of the actions of opposition MPs and a growing number of Tories who had begun to support Churchill. Even so, declaration of war on Germany was followed by the “phoney war”. Both sides continued to take part in secret negotiations. However, when these broke down Hitler took the bold decision to invade Norway. Chamberlain was now put under pressure to resign. Chamberlain approached Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour Party, to help form a National Government. Attlee refused to serve under Chamberlain. That night, the German Army invaded Holland and Belgium. Chamberlain then went to Buckingham Palace and offered his resignation. The king suggested that Lord Halifax, the arch-appeaser, should takeover as prime-minister. Chamberlain said that was his choice as well, but that Attlee had made it clear that the Labour Party would be unwilling to serve under Halifax. Chamberlain admitted that the only possible candidate for the job was Churchill. When the House of Commons met on 13th May, 1940, Tory MPs rose to cheer Chamberlain. When Churchill stood up to speak, the only cheers came from Labour MPs. Tories were only too aware that Churchill had gained power by betraying a policy that he had agreed with. They believed it was only a matter of time before he began secret negotiations with Hitler. They were right. (more later) Rivetting stuff, Simmo. Reads like a C4 script (it rehashes all the usual errors). Your last para is a real hoot. The roars of the Lancaster pilots can be heard while their engines are running...

Don't rise to the bait John! I'm a semi professional agent provocateur! I'm also an inveterate attention seeker, showman and lay-about. Your a good bunch on this board (even ol' 'Simmers' for all his nonsense which I'm about to set fire to on the Churchill thread), but Christ, you are weighed down with so much PC baggage! When it comes to unpicking conspiracies, folks, it helps if you first remove the ideological blinkers (he said mixing his metaphors). It's only when the truth really hurts you that you know you've got it right! Have you considered a career as a talking head on TV, Michael? You seem to meet the selection criteria. I was THAT close to anchoring my own current affairs gig years back. But all my guests must have had grossly incompetent diary secretaries as they were always double booked. A mystery I still can't fathom today...

Where is your evidence for this claim? Mr. Chapman’s game seems to be making enigmatic posts that he fancies as cleverly written in which he normally takes jabs you or members of the forum in general, providing evidence thus far has not been part of that game. I doubt he plans to provide or even has any. Thanks for the above Ron LOL 1) See my last post on the Litvinenko thread. 2) Len, I swear, you will always be first in the queue for the 'Chapman Experience.' But you must understand, like all great showmen, I have to build the tension first. In any case, Simmo still hasn't given us his grand Churchill theory...

Prouty was not "a careful scholar," as the link you provided demonstrates. Here is the truth about the John Swinton whom Prouty misrepresents (which doesn't surprise me at all): http://www.rense.com/general20/yes.htm Whether or not Prouty was a careful scholar is immaterial. Winston (I use the familiar moniker just to get up Simmer's nose) was at the very least an accessory to Rooselvelt's murder (there, you see, evidence that my probiscus isn't half way up Winston's sphincter!). Their relationship can only be characterised as 'special' only in so far as the adjective describes the state of loathing and distrustfulness that existed between them. Roosevelt had to die...

It is not a question of 'being bothered' Michael, but a distinct lack of time that hinders most on this forum. You are a journalist and so I presume you would have the time to follow up on this. Would you care to educate us on the conclusions that you have reached? Two books have recently been released on the Litvinenko case. Perhpas you would care to share your conclusions with Scotland yard? John Don't rise to the bait John! I'm a semi professional agent provocateur! I'm also an inveterate attention seeker, showman and lay-about. Your a good bunch on this board (even ol' 'Simmers' for all his nonsense which I'm about to set fire to on the Churchill thread), but Christ, you are weighed down with so much PC baggage! When it comes to unpicking conspiracies, folks, it helps if you first remove the ideological blinkers (he said mixing his metaphors). It's only when the truth really hurts you that you know you've got it right!

The murder of Alexander Litvinenko is probably the first spook whodunnit that could have been solved by an ordinary Joe who just followed the discrepancies and omissions in the reporting. Not a single contributor on this thread could be bothered to do that You may or not be relieved to know that I did. But I am not going to reveal just now who almost certainly did kill Litvinenko and why. I will only do this when every contributor on this threat has written out 500 times: 'I must always remember to follow the timelines.'

I know what you mean, but I would not go as far as this. No, John, you don't have a clue what I mean. Your mission statement (to fit Churchill up), your failure even to mention the obvious leading suspect(s) in the Duke of Kent case and your evasive, inadequate reply to my question all make Operation Paget appear credible by comparison. I hear the steady drone of Lancasters coming to 'Coventrize' your argument...

At this stage it might be worth considering the theory put forward by the authors of “Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up”. Three journalists/historians had been working independently on different events during the Second World War. Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior joined forces to write the book initially published in 2001. I have a copy of the revised edition that takes into account of the witnesses that came forward in reaction to the first edition. I do not fully accept this theory of events but it does provide a structure that will enable an informed debate on the subject. Picknett, Prince and Prior rely heavily on Robert Brydon’s research into the death of the Duke of Kent. They are also indebted to Hugh Thomas (The Murder of Rudolf Hess – 1979) who provided the evidence that suggested that the man in Spandau Prison was not Rudolf Hess. The authors of Double Standards argue that the Flying Boat flew to Sir Archibald Sinclair’s Baremore Lodge in order to pick up Rudolf Hess. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, one of the surprising things about this story was that Sir Louis Greig was not on board. Greig had been the Duke of Kent’s constant companion over the previous few months. Was Greig spying on the Duke? Is it relevant that he had been the former secretary of Sir Archibald Sinclair and a close confidant of Winston Churchill? Was Greig warned that the aircraft would crash? The authors argue that the destination was Sweden rather than Iceland. Sweden was a neutral country that had been used before to negotiate between the UK and Germany during the war. The authors argue that only the British government could have organized the accident and ensured the cover-up. They also point out the similarities with other flying incidents that involved people who were inconvenient to the government. In November 1942, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government in exile, boarded a Lockhead Hudson at Montreal. On take-off, when the plane was only 30 feet in the air, both engines cut out. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing. In March, 1943, General de Gaulle, needed to visit Glasgow. The General hated flying and intended to take the train from London. Sir Archibald Sinclair persuaded him to change his mind and take a Wellington bomber from RAF Hendon to Abbotsinch near Glasgow. However, the plane’s elevators failed to respond. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing. A secret RAF investigation discovered that the control rods had been eaten through with acid and that this was a clear case of sabotage. The investigation blamed German infiltrators but the culprits were never caught. This report was not released until 1967. Other recently released documents show that during this period Churchill was talking about General Charles de Gaulle as being a nuisance that needed to be “eliminated”. On 4th July 1943, Sikorski was on a Liberator that refuelled in Gibraltar. Within minutes of taking off the plane crashed into the sea. There was only one survivor, the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Edward Prchal. He survived because he was wearing a life-jacket that he had put on before the aircraft had taken off. According to the official inquiry the elevator controls had jammed. Summer Welles, the US Under-Secretary of State, went on record as saying he believed Sikorski had been assassinated. Sikorski’s widow claimed that her husband had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill. Had the Duke of Kent’s flying boat’s control rods been tampered with? We already know that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat had a major design fault – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why its pilots always tried to fly over sea. This would have been the case unless the pilot was asked to pick up a passenger at Baremore Lodge. The authors argue that if the flying boat had picked up a passenger at Braemore it would have needed to pass over Eagle Rock to get back to its original flight plan. It was also at this point when the flying boat would have needed to climb. Something it failed to do. The authors argue that Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of the Duke of Kent because he was involved in an act of treason. He was negotiating with the Germans about the possible surrender of the UK. It is for this reason that the Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up. Although I believe that it is possible that Winston Churchill did order the assassination of the Duke of Kent, I do not accept the motive for the action. The authors accept the traditional historical view of Churchill and find it acceptable for him to act in such a way in order to protect the best interests of the country. In other words, the motive justifies the decision to “eliminate” the Duke of Kent. However, I intend to argue that Churchill ordered the assassinations of the Duke of Kent and Rudolf Hess to protect his own historical reputation. If he had not done so, our view of Winston Churchill today would be very different. You might have to think long and hard before answering this John (because I have a horrible feeling you might not have considered this before)... but WHICH British government arranged the accident and cover-up?

Mr Simkin, I await your promised posts on the Duke of Kent's 'accident' and Churchill's 'real intentions' with interest. At the moment it looks like you can't see the wood for the trees. Perhaps this little chestnut might aid your vision: In the late '20's a new Tory MP took exception to Churchill's continual grizzling duing his maiden speech. Churchill finally snapped when the young Turk referred to Labour members as 'the enemy.' 'You fool' said Churchill, 'that's the opposition, the enemy is behind you!' Now Mr Simkin, ask yourself these questions: 1) What was the real reason behind the formation of the SOE? 2) Ditto the CIA? Remember, the universe consists largely of DARK matter...

I am 40 years of age and am currently domiciled in Northants, UK. I hold a degree in Politics, Philosophy & Economics and am a freelance finance and economics journalist contributing mainly to b2b titles. The chief attraction of your forum is its high level of political discourse. Your contributors in the main are mature and knowledgeable and write excellent prose (one would be hard pressed to find such attributes on most conspiracy boards). I feel that I could make a modest contribution to your quest for truth on a number of fronts because I tend to stand back and look at the patterns emerging on a broad canvas rather than strain through the microscope at the minutiae of specific events (that is not to dismiss the importance of the latter strategy - mysteries are usually solved as a result of a synthesis of these approaches).