The inquest into the 2006 death of Alexander Litvinenko has gone beyond farce
Alexander Litvinenko. © Photo: vesti.ru
London coroner Robert Owen is fiercely pursuing a mission of his own. He wants to know who murdered Alexander Litvinenko. There's just one problem: It's never been officially established that homicide was the cause of death.
Cause of death still unknown
Litvinenko
is the former Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) operative who died
in suspicious circumstances in London in 2006. It is perhaps equally
suspicious that now, almost seven years after his death, there's been no
verdict on what happened to him.
Was his death an accident, a suicide, a murder?
Ironically Owen himself is the official who is supposed to decide.
Yet
the question of what actually happened to Litvinenko still begs an
answer. The autopsy report has not been made public. The coroner has not
issued a death certificate.
Purpose of an inquest
According
to the Ministry of Justice, the purpose of a coroner's inquest is "not
to apportion blame, but to answer four questions: (1) Who died? (2) When they died? (3) Where they died? (4) How they died?"
The rules emphatically state that the proceedings and evidence at an inquest "shall be directed solely to ascertaining" those specific matters. To make things perfectly clear, coroners are also instructed that "neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on any other matters."
As if that wasn't clear enough, the rules continue: "No
verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any
question of criminal liability on the part of a named person, or civil
liability."
Secrecy claimed
The British government has refused to disclose certain relevant documents to the inquest on the basis of state secrecy.
As
a result, he's suggesting that proceedings be transferred from the
coroner's office to a special inquiry that would be empowered by the
Secretary of State. There, evidence could be heard behind closed doors.
Unanswered question
Of the four questions the coroner is supposed to answer, only one remains unanswered. It is how Litvinenko died.
It
has been widely reported that the ingestion of radioactive polonium was
the cause of death. Was it? If it wasn't polonium, what was the cause
of death? Why won't Owen answer the question? The details are in the
autopsy report. Why won't Owen make it public?
Possible causes of death
Extensive
media coverage has also been given to reports that Litvinenko was
murdered. Was he? Some reports say the Russian state killed him. Others
blame the late Boris Berezovsky, the fugitive Russian tycoon who was
hiding out in London. Irrespective of who might have done it, is there
evidence that the death was a homicide? Can suicide or accident or other
manners of death be excluded? Why won't Owen answer these questions
either?
If he doesn't have conclusive evidence, the
coroner's rules indicate that he should conclude an "open verdict."
That's the correct response when there is insufficient evidence for any
other verdict.
Why is he shirking away from reaching a conclusion?
It may be because there's more to this than meets the eye.
Preventability and culpability
The British government has two areas of conflicted interests in the Litvinenko case.
The first is the matter of "preventability."
Litvinenko
is widely alleged to have been working for British security services.
Did they have knowledge of circumstances that were likely to lead to his
death? Could they have intervened in a way that could have prevented
it? And did they fail to exercise that responsibility?
If
the British government is culpable in that regard, does that make it
vulnerable to legal action by Litvinenko's widow and child? Is the
government acting to protect itself from that?
The second matter is the allegations made by the Crown Prosecution Service about Russian culpability in Litvinenko's death.
The Berezovsky connection
They
seem to have been based on accusations made by Berezovsky and his
associates. Their claims have been shown, however, to be without a basis
in fact. They were specious. I described all this in my book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder.
Was
the British government bamboozled by Berezovsky? And does it now wish
to avoid the humiliation of that being officially exposed?
Calling the coroner to account
I think Robert Owen owes the British public and the world community a verdict on the job he was tasked to do.
He should issue a finding on the cause of death, and he should specify the manner of death if one is known.
A
former Russian spy has said he will give testimony in the murder case
of a former Russian FSB Security Service officer, Alexander Litvinenko,
Britain’s dailyThe Independent writes in its Monday’s issue.
According
to the periodical, the witness is currently making his home in the US,
and he cooperated with Litvinenko in the last few months of his life.
Mr
Litvinenko wrote a report for Titon International on powerful figures
in Moscow, which was rejected by the security firm for being of poor
quality. Mr Litvinenko then contacted the former spy who has now emerged
as a key witness in the investigation, who produced a far more
comprehensive dossier on the same individuals.
The
daily points out that the British police see the man as a very
important witness, so they visited him in the United States on three
occasions to persuade him to give testimony.
Last
Friday, the UK coroner who leads the probe into the circumstances of
Alexander Litvinenko murder in the UK, said he would hear no evidence
that Russia could be involved in Litvinenko’s death.
Nor
would coroner Robert Owner hear any claims that the British authorities
could have prevented the death of the former Russian
counterintelligence officer.
The British Foreign Secretary William Hague asked the coroner earlier not to make public the related classified documents.
The
coroner then ruled that it is better in this case not to examine some
aspects of Alexander Litvinenko’s death, than to examine them on the
basis of incomplete information.
He added that he would consider of a likely investigation behind closed doors.
Earlier,
the widow of Alexander Litvinenko, Marina, has called for the inquest
into her late husband's death to be abandoned and for a public inquiry
to be held in its place.
Ben
Emmerson, the lawyer for Litvinenko's widow Marina, said the British
government's quest for secrecy was delaying proceedings and suggested
that foreign policy – namely trade relations – could be at the heart of
the matter.
"We know
nothing about why these applications are being made and we are dancing
in the dark," he told coroner Robert Owen. "This is beginning to look
like you're being steamrollered by two states acting in collaboration
with each other."
No comments:
Post a Comment