[Misc] Putin's Least Believable BS Yet?

[pb21]

Then you are looking for a higher burden of proof than any UK criminal court would, in the absence of a confession of guilt.

A criminal conviction is secured if guilt is deemed to be beyond reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the jury.

Given the accumulated evidence of these guys movements during their time in the UK, combined with the utter implausibility of their stated purpose for visiting Salisbury, the known origin of the poison, the history of the intended victim and Russia's 'previous' in this MO, I firmly believe their involvement is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person.

Out of genuine interest, what would you accept as 'proven fact'? CCTV of them administering poison to the door handle? Or would you then say it might have been WD40 and they were doing an odd job as a favour for an old GRU pal? In the absence of a confession, what would you accept as definitive proof of their involvement?

Even a confession wouldn't be definitive proof of their involvement.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Even a confession wouldn't be definitive proof of their involvement.

Very true. People confess or even plead guilty for a variety of reasons.

 

[dingodan]

Then you are looking for a higher burden of proof than any UK criminal court would, in the absence of a confession of guilt.

A criminal conviction is secured if guilt is deemed to be beyond reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the jury.

Given the accumulated evidence of these guys movements during their time in the UK, combined with the utter implausibility of their stated purpose for visiting Salisbury, the known origin of the poison, the history of the intended victim and Russia's 'previous' in this MO, I firmly believe their involvement is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person.

Out of genuine interest, what would you accept as 'proven fact'? CCTV of them administering poison to the door handle? Or would you then say it might have been WD40 and they were doing an odd job as a favour for an old GRU pal? In the absence of a confession, what would you accept as definitive proof of their involvement?

Actually I would apply the same standard as you, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where we disagree is that you feel that the available evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I actually think that standard hasn't been met by the available evidence, which at the moment is circumstantial. Highly suspicious, but still circumstantial.

I don't think the available evidence would convict them in court (although there maybe further evidence which hasn't been disclosed). Certainly being in the vicinity of a crime isn't usually enough to convict a person. To your other point, Russia may have form but a court isn't going to be trying "Russia" it's going to be trying two individuals, and if you wanted to use previous form to support a case it would have to be their previous form, not just their country's.

Assuming that these men are guilty, just like everyone else I want it proven and them convicted. But it would need proving. If you are happy to allow anything less than that then you have abandoned the principles of justice and that risks the wrongful conviction of innocent people, which isn't a good thing.

I don't say this for the sake of a couple of Russians who I don't know, I say it for our sake because our standards are supposed to be high and justice is something we consider important in this country.

I've heard stories about people being convicted in Russia on very weak cases, especially in cases which are of political significance. I'd like to think we have a better and more robust judicial system than they have in Russia. Let's not behave like those we would condemn.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I'll just chuck this in here as I've just seen it......

Dutch expelled Russians over alleged novichok lab hacking plot

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-plot?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Actually I would apply the same standard as you, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where we disagree is that you feel that the available evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I actually think that standard hasn't been met by the available evidence, which at the moment is circumstantial. Highly suspicious, but still circumstantial.

I don't think the available evidence would convict them in court (although there maybe further evidence which hasn't been disclosed). Certainly being in the vicinity of a crime isn't usually enough to convict a person. To your other point, Russia may have form but a court isn't going to be trying "Russia" it's going to be trying two individuals, and if you wanted to use previous form to support a case it would have to be their previous form, not just their country's.

Assuming that these men are guilty, just like everyone else I want it proven and them convicted. But it would need proving. If you are happy to allow anything less than that then you have abandoned the principles of justice and that risks the wrongful conviction of innocent people, which isn't a good thing.

I don't say this for the sake of a couple of Russians who I don't know, I say it for our sake because our standards are supposed to be high and justice is something we consider important in this country.

I've heard stories about people being convicted in Russia on very weak cases, especially in cases which are of political significance. I'd like to think we have a better and more robust judicial system than they have in Russia. Let's not behave like those we would condemn.

No one has claimed that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is for a jury to decide should this ever get to Court

What has been said is that they believe that they are almost certain that they have identified the people responsible and would charge them for this offence. It doesn't mean that they have been found guilty and the beauty of our justice system is that defendants are able to challenge evidence and also provide explanations and produce their own evidence in support of their defence.

What you seem to be calling for is a trial by media or public opinion, where all the details of the case are released to the public for them to decide upon guilt or innocence before this (or any other case) goes to trial.

The material released may not be everything the authorities have as a part of their case, and more may be revealed during a trial, they wont release it in case it does what you are calling for and that is to make peoples minds up before it goes to court, meaning that the defendants wouldn't get a fair trial

The jury is looking to see if the evidence presented proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the public, not the media, etc.

Other countries, like the US may have already been shown all the evidence, not just fragments like the general public and have reached their conclusion from that evidence, that it is highly likely that they were behind the attack (not that they were 100% definitely responsible)

You are way off, my only point has been that definate things need proving. There may be evidence which we don't know about, I fully accept that. But if you don't know about it, how can you at the same time be definate about it?

I'm looking forward to being definate about the fact these guys did it, genuinely. I just can't until I know it's a proven fact, and I think that's a pretty reasonable standard.

If it was beyond a doubt (as you are calling for) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, then no one would ever get convicted of anything, even if they were witnessed in the act as they could suggest something which may be a one in a billion shot of being true so therefore not beyond a doubt

 

[Triggaaar]

You said "There's cctv evidence" and you even felt able to say why they did it.

Yes, as far as I remember, that's what I heard reported (I didn't say I'd seen it). It's not the basis of my overall opinion either way.

I'm more than willing to accept that it happened if it's reported somewhere, but if it isn't would you be willing to acknowledge that you made a mistake on that?

Yes, if that's not what happened, then I made a mistake believing it did.

 

[dingodan]

No one has claimed that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is for a jury to decide should this ever get to Court

What has been said is that they believe that they are almost certain that they have identified the people responsible and would charge them for this offence. It doesn't mean that they have been found guilty and the beauty of our justice system is that defendants are able to challenge evidence and also provide explanations and produce their own evidence in support of their defence.

What you seem to be calling for is a trial by media or public opinion, where all the details of the case are released to the public for them to decide upon guilt or innocence before this (or any other case) goes to trial.

The material released may not be everything the authorities have as a part of their case, and more may be revealed during a trial, they wont release it in case it does what you are calling for and that is to make peoples minds up before it goes to court, meaning that the defendants wouldn't get a fair trial

The jury is looking to see if the evidence presented proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the public, not the media, etc.

Other countries, like the US may have already been shown all the evidence, not just fragments like the general public and have reached their conclusion from that evidence, that it is highly likely that they were behind the attack (not that they were 100% definitely responsible)



If it was beyond a doubt (as you are calling for) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, then no one would ever get convicted of anything, even if they were witnessed in the act as they could suggest something which may be a one in a billion shot of being true so therefore not beyond a doubt

"What you seem to be calling for is a trial by media or public opinion" - I thought I was arguing against that, everyone seems to have decided without the neccessary evidence, I've been saying that's not a very good way to decide things.

"No one has claimed that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - In this thread, everyone has been saying that. It's said explicitly at the top of this page. It's the whole point of everything I have said. If people were talking as though they believed it "seemed likely", I'd have never posted a thing.

"If it was beyond a doubt (as you are calling for) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt" - I said in the first sentence of the very post you are quoting that the standard is reasonable doubt.

 

[Norman Potting]

No one has claimed that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is for a jury to decide should this ever get to Court

What has been said is that they believe that they are almost certain that they have identified the people responsible and would charge them for this offence. It doesn't mean that they have been found guilty and the beauty of our justice system is that defendants are able to challenge evidence and also provide explanations and produce their own evidence in support of their defence.

What you seem to be calling for is a trial by media or public opinion, where all the details of the case are released to the public for them to decide upon guilt or innocence before this (or any other case) goes to trial.

The material released may not be everything the authorities have as a part of their case, and more may be revealed during a trial, they wont release it in case it does what you are calling for and that is to make peoples minds up before it goes to court, meaning that the defendants wouldn't get a fair trial

The jury is looking to see if the evidence presented proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the public, not the media, etc.

Other countries, like the US may have already been shown all the evidence, not just fragments like the general public and have reached their conclusion from that evidence, that it is highly likely that they were behind the attack (not that they were 100% definitely responsible)



If it was beyond a doubt (as you are calling for) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, then no one would ever get convicted of anything, even if they were witnessed in the act as they could suggest something which may be a one in a billion shot of being true so therefore not beyond a doubt

I'd go with that.

As an aside did you have a fascination with foundations and cellars and felt compelled, whilst delivering some barrels to a friend which you believed were flour, feel the urge to visit the basement of the Houses of Parliament

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'd go with that.

As an aside did you have a fascination with foundations and cellars and felt compelled, whilst delivering some barrels to a friend which you believed were flour, feel the urge to visit the basement of the Houses of Parliament

Something like that, I just happened to stumble across the barrels in that cellar at the exact moment that the authorities raided the place and I was only in there because i had followed a suspicious man with only one arm who had recently killed the wife of my good friend, Dr Richard Kimble.

The tragic thing was that i had never been in there before (so how could i have put it there) and the fact i had a receipt for the same amount of gunpowder (which couldn't be located anywhere else when the authorities searched for it) is purely co-incidental.

The gunpowder i brought was for gardening purposes, as i had a large rock that someone was paying me to get rid of from their property and i deemed it the best way to get rid of it (yes, that rock would have taken 36 barrels worth of gunpowder to shift)

The fact that my confession was only achieved by torture, and by that point i'd have confessed to being anything and having done anything they wanted me to just to make it stop means i am totally innocent of this crime

 

[Guy Fawkes]

You are way off, my only point has been that definate things need proving. There may be evidence which we don't know about, I fully accept that. But if you don't know about it, how can you at the same time be definate about it?

I'm looking forward to being definate about the fact these guys did it, genuinely. I just can't until I know it's a proven fact, and I think that's a pretty reasonable standard.

Can people stop accusing me of conspiracy theory. I haven't suggested a conspiracy anywhere in this thread.

I've suggested that you accept as fact things which are proven. Things which seem pretty likely you treat as things which seem pretty likely.

Conspiracy theorists accept things as fact when they are not proven, usually because it's what they already believe (or want to believe).

Some of that kind of thinking is going on in this thread, but not by me.

"What you seem to be calling for is a trial by media or public opinion" - I thought I was arguing against that, everyone seems to have decided without the neccessary evidence, I've been saying that's not a very good way to decide things.

"No one has claimed that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - In this thread, everyone has been saying that. It's said explicitly at the top of this page. It's the whole point of everything I have said. If people were talking as though they believed it "seemed likely", I'd have never posted a thing.

"If it was beyond a doubt (as you are calling for) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt" - I said in the first sentence of the very post you are quoting that the standard is reasonable doubt.

Your previous posts are the ones that say that things need to be proved (see a couple of examples above) and not just to beyond a reasonable doubt but proven, not mine

Your posts also read as: you doubt the information being released by the authorities, saying that it isn't enough proof in what has been released, implying that a lot more proof is needed and should therefore it needs to be released so that you, and the general public can judge whether this was the act of the 2 suspects or not

Putting all the information to achieve that into the public domain = trial by public opinion because you are seemingly calling for this to happen allowing you to judge guilt or innocence rather than leave it to the court and legal system to judge it.

It also comes across as doubting the information provided, and seemingly thinking that the information released is all the evidence that exists against these 2 individuals, meaning, to you at least, that there is no case here and therefore its a conspiracy against these 2 and against Russia (+ throw in your friends backing friends post, when countries like the US back our version of events and our identified suspects as being responsible = a big conspiracy).

It may just be how it comes across in the posts on here, and that isn't what you meant to communicate when writing your posts, but things in writing can more easily be mis-interpreted

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Does anyone believe that with all the media publicity and comments from politicians, the two suspects could have a fair trial in a British Court of Law or would they be condemned out of hand by a jury?

Would anyone who is being sort by Police and their crime is featured / re-enacted on Crimewatch? or if the Police release (or share by social media) persons wanted information?

It should be for the jury to decide upon the evidence presented in court only, if that happens, then yes, they should get a fair trial as they just have to be able to challenge the evidence against them to the point that it's not possible for the jury to find that there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

However that doesn't mean that miscarriages of justice don't happen because people have been swayed by public opinion being turned against them before the trial started (i can think of a local case where this happened but this isn't the right thread for that)

 

[vegster]

No need to get worked up, they will never face trial. They will either become minor celebrities in Russia and be well protected by the powers that be or shipped out somewhere to deepest, darkest Russia to live the rest of their lives in obscurity. Meanwhile, I wonder when Mr Putin will " find " the crew from the Russian Ground to Air missile system that shot down the Malaysian Airways passenger plane ? or are they already buried in a ditch with bullets in the back of their heads ?

 

[Bry Nylon]

Actually I would apply the same standard as you, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where we disagree is that you feel that the available evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I actually think that standard hasn't been met by the available evidence, which at the moment is circumstantial. Highly suspicious, but still circumstantial.

I don't think the available evidence would convict them in court (although there maybe further evidence which hasn't been disclosed). Certainly being in the vicinity of a crime isn't usually enough to convict a person. To your other point, Russia may have form but a court isn't going to be trying "Russia" it's going to be trying two individuals, and if you wanted to use previous form to support a case it would have to be their previous form, not just their country's.

Assuming that these men are guilty, just like everyone else I want it proven and them convicted. But it would need proving. If you are happy to allow anything less than that then you have abandoned the principles of justice and that risks the wrongful conviction of innocent people, which isn't a good thing.

I don't say this for the sake of a couple of Russians who I don't know, I say it for our sake because our standards are supposed to be high and justice is something we consider important in this country.

I've heard stories about people being convicted in Russia on very weak cases, especially in cases which are of political significance. I'd like to think we have a better and more robust judicial system than they have in Russia. Let's not behave like those we would condemn.

Okay. I think you take a comendably principalled position on this, and if you were ever to become a barrister and I was up on a murder charge, having been found stood over the body of my arch enemy with a bloody knife in my hand, your number would be the one I'd dial with my one permitted phone call from custody.

But let's just look at the known facts.

Sergei Viktorovich Skripal is a former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a double agent for the UK's intelligence services during the 1990s and early 2000s. In December 2004, he was arrested by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) and later tried, convicted of high treason, and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He settled in the UK in 2010 following the Illegals Program spy swap.

On 4 March 2018, he and his daughter Yulia, who was visiting him from Moscow, were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Novichok nerve agent was developed by the former Soviet Union.

On Friday 2nd March two Russian men arrived at Gatwick at 3pm following four-hour flight from Moscow and travelled to a hotel in east London. Their stated reason for visiting the UK was to visit Salisbury cathedral on the recommendation of friends, 90 miles from London

They travelled to Salisbury the following morning but claimed that the snow and adverse weather conditions were so dramatic that they were “wet to the knees”, forcing them to abort their sightseeing tour before it began.They returned the following day (4th March) and were captured on CCTV in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s home, which is on cul-de-sac in a residential area outside the city centre, shortly before midday. It was on theafternoon of the 4th of March that the Skripal's became critically ill from Novichok nerve agent was applied to Mr Skripal's door handle. But the men insisted that despite further snowfall, which Met Office forecasts suggest did not take place, they found the time to go the cathedral and the less well-known Old Sarum, before leaving again just after lunch.

The pair travelled back to London and got the Tube to Heathrow, leaving the country for Moscow early that evening.

So 2 middle-aged Russian men travelled from Moscow to London to visit Salisbury catherdral but spent just a couple of hours in Salisbury. CCTV has placed them close to Skripal's house on the outskirts of the city - nowhere near the Catherdral. On this exact same day, Russian nerve agent was applied to the front door of Skripal's house - an ex-GRU officer convicted by the Russians of High Treason.

So the other question is - if the Russian nerve agent wasn't applied by these two men, who was it applied by?

 

[The Fifth Column]

The Russian state leads the world in propaganda, counter-propaganda, lies and deception. They even have a word for it - Maskirovka which essentially is a mainly military doctrine and strategy designed to sow doubt, untruths and generally confuse things to the point where their enemies positions are weakened. So widespread is Maskirovka that it has become part of Russia's national identity, they revel in it and brush aside any criticism even when faced with irrefutable evidence as seen in the Crimea to use just one example. Threads like this are exactly what the Russian state want to generate because on a larger scale when you add all the similar conversations being had elsewhere it is exactly the sort of confusion and argument the Russians want to propagate. You may laugh at the notion that a thread on NSC is somehow connected to the Russian states grand plan but indirectly it is in its own small minuscule way.

The Russians parading the 2 assassins and portraying them as a couple of bumbling tourists is a master stroke of Maskirovka, anyone looking at them on TV will think how in the hell could these 2 wuckfits be highly trained GRU agents. The Russians have even themselves sown a seed that they could be gay in order to cater for their home audience since their military is a very masculine and macho anti-gay stronghold and to suggest the two are 'nancy boy' tourists will cause the Russian public to look at any suggestion they are military agents with disbelief.

 

[Bry Nylon]

The Russian state leads the world in propaganda, counter-propaganda, lies and deception. They even have a word for it - Maskirovka which essentially is a mainly military doctrine and strategy designed to sow doubt, untruths and generally confuse things to the point where their enemies positions are weakened.

I like that term but I prefer the English expression...

Chinny-reckon.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I like that term but I prefer the English expression...

Chinny-reckon.

Or its counterpart "Jimmy Hill".

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The question that interests me is if they brought the novichok with them - which would have been disastrous if they had been caught - or picked it up when here ( smuggled into the embassy ? ). I reckon the security services know.

 

[dingodan]

Fine, I give up.

Clearly guilty as sin.

 

[clippedgull]

[tweet]1040651442154024960[/tweet]

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

FFS. Consecutive passport numbers. What are the chances of that ? [emoji38]ol:



https://twitter.com/IlvesToomas/status/1040478021977694208?s=19