........snip..........The years of delay nourished a clutch of conspiracy theories, but the official version of events and motives has been set for so long that few expect Owen to turn up any surprises, despite his repeated resolutions to undertake a “fair and fearless” inquiry. UK public opinion has largely tired of the story, dismissing it as just another example of Kremlin thuggery. Yet the gaps and inconsistencies that have been pointed out by some of those lumped with conspiracy theorists are fundamental to documenting, if not actually explaining, what happened. The most glaring, seen as the key to any inquiry by the US investigative author, Edward Jay Epstein, among others, is the publication of the post-mortem findings. Although Litvinenko’s death provoked shocked headlines and prompted a drawn-out diplomatic row, the actual post-mortem results have never been released, not even to support the UK’s extradition request for Lugovoi.
As the British investigative reporter David Habakkuk notes, it is still not at all clear who contaminated whom, and in what order. There remain questions about the role of Berezovsky in “managing” information, and the role of a certain businessman, Yuri Shvets (who was the focus of a BBC radio investigation soon after Litvinenko’s death).
A Soviet-era exiled scientist, Zhores Medvedev, insists that Russia itself is among those who argue that the country is not the only source of polonium. There is evidence, too, that in the wake of Berezovsky’s death last year, Scotland Yard is taking a new look at its earlier investigation into the Litvinenko case. Some also maintain that Owen has retreated from his earlier assumption that this was a (Russian) state-directed assassination. This line was put about, first by anonymous security sources, and later by the director of public prosecutions at the time, Ken Macdonald. If true, this would change a great deal.
There is plenty, in other words, for Sir Robert Owen to get his teeth into, if he so chooses. Marina Litvinenko, meanwhile, remains stalwart in her faith in British justice. In interviews, she has said that there is no such thing in Britain as Russian-style “telephone justice”, and the that law had to be allowed to take its course. Her solicitor, Elena Tsirlina, insists that her client is “happy” with the inquiry arrangements, including the anonymity granted to many witnesses and the amount of evidence likely to be heard in secret. “She has full confidence in Sir Robert Owen,” she told me.........snip..........
Click for Full Text!
