British lawyer says spy was killed "on Putin's orders"

I have no idea how true this is, but neither does the author or the lawyer or the widow. Someone believing something, then someone parroting someone they loved who believed in something, then someone paid to parrot someone who parroted someone they loved who said something isn't proof. That something was said by a 'British lawyer' doesn't make anything more or less true than the thing was to begin with without evidence. In other words: this isn't news.

Proof is a pretty good thing. Like, evidence, of the forensic variety. Science, not emotion and finger-pointing.

It's not like I don't understand the desire to attribute this to whomever -- I just don't consider this news. Faking attribution has long been used as a tactic to stir things up and cause turmoil. We should have higher standards than 'he said, because she said, because he said'.

And so? What can say OTAN?

Someone should ask Mrs. Litvinenko how she knows her husband "was killed by agents of the Russian state." I doubt she can come with any objectively verifiable facts. This article reflects a massive fabrication that was initiated even before Litvinenko died and any suspicion of polonium poisoning had arisen. The scheme was concocted by Putin arch enemy Boris Berezovsky, a Russian robber baron who was hiding out in London from criminal prosecution back home. Berezovsky was angling to see Putin overthrown in a violent revolution and replaced by a monarch. No kidding. I'm not just alleging that. He said so in his own words. Through the "Putin did it" fabrication Berezovsky was quite successful in further discrediting Putin. Litvinenko himself, though, is on record as believing it was someone else that poisoned him. But no coroner has ever ruled the death was even a homicide. I don't know whether or not Putin or any other Russian had complicity in the death. But I do know that principals behind the accusations have been lying. There is an abundance of evidence that this has been a nefarious witch hunt all along. My two books on the Litvinenko case go into far more detail: The Phony Litvinenko Murder (2011) thoroughly documents that the popular storyline in this case is based on fabrication. In Litvinenko Murder Case Solved (2015) I offer extensive documentation that the coroner's witch hunt for culpability was rigged and operated largely outside of the law.

I do believe Putin has ordered it. He had a conflict of interest, he knew very well the potential of ex-kgb spy, it will not be the first and the last similar story where he's accusated for ordering the elimination of it's adversary.

And so? What can say OTAN?

Someone should ask Mrs. Litvinenko how she knows her husband "was killed by agents of the Russian state." I doubt she can come with any objectively verifiable facts. This article reflects a massive fabrication that was initiated even before Litvinenko died and any suspicion of polonium poisoning had arisen. The scheme was concocted by Putin arch enemy Boris Berezovsky, a Russian robber baron who was hiding out in London from criminal prosecution back home. Berezovsky was angling to see Putin overthrown in a violent revolution and replaced by a monarch. No kidding. I'm not just alleging that. He said so in his own words. Through the "Putin did it" fabrication Berezovsky was quite successful in further discrediting Putin. Litvinenko himself, though, is on record as believing it was someone else that poisoned him. But no coroner has ever ruled the death was even a homicide. I don't know whether or not Putin or any other Russian had complicity in the death. But I do know that principals behind the accusations have been lying. There is an abundance of evidence that this has been a nefarious witch hunt all along. My two books on the Litvinenko case go into far more detail: The Phony Litvinenko Murder (2011) thoroughly documents that the popular storyline in this case is based on fabrication. In Litvinenko Murder Case Solved (2015) I offer extensive documentation that the coroner's witch hunt for culpability was rigged and operated largely outside of the law.

I have no idea how true this is, but neither does the author or the lawyer or the widow. Someone believing something, then someone parroting someone they loved who believed in something, then someone paid to parrot someone who parroted someone they loved who said something isn't proof. That something was said by a 'British lawyer' doesn't make anything more or less true than the thing was to begin with without evidence. In other words: this isn't news.

Proof is a pretty good thing. Like, evidence, of the forensic variety. Science, not emotion and finger-pointing.

It's not like I don't understand the desire to attribute this to whomever -- I just don't consider this news. Faking attribution has long been used as a tactic to stir things up and cause turmoil. We should have higher standards than 'he said, because she said, because he said'.

I do believe Putin has ordered it. He had a conflict of interest, he knew very well the potential of ex-kgb spy, it will not be the first and the last similar story where he's accusated for ordering the elimination of it's adversary.