British Government beta tests the “Charlie Rowley with perfume bottle” narrative

Although an FBEL piece is planned with a focus on Syria, there is actually no great deal of analysis required: at one level the Trump-Putin summit was about stimulating the continued derangement of a large portion of the electorates in the English speaking world, so that opposition to its Globalist government can be framed as working with Russia. Anyone selling big ideas about Trump wanting peace or dealing a blow to the “deep state” (which doesn’t exist: the correct term to use is “the US Government”) is dealing in the con, consciously or not. The US Government has lost in Syria, and lost badly – Trump went to Helsinki to start a process whereby lower-level contacts between the two countries can be used to salvage the situation. Trump just had to yap and bang his cymbals.

In the UK, the British Establishment has also been doing its bit to engender anti-Russian sentiment which it can then turn on its domestic opponents. Did not Putin say of the Amesbury incident, in that post-conference interview with Fox News, that it was driven by domestic issues in Britain?

It is increasingly clear that the British Government is introducing an explanation for the so-called poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess through its controlled corporate-media using Matthew Rowley, Charlie’s brother, as a mouthpiece, or more likely – and especially where he is only quoted rather than being seen or heard to speak for himself – as a cardboard cut-out to whom “leaking” information can be attributed. The obvious advantage in the slow-release of a narrative in this way is to prevent police arriving in a storyline dead end, where a sudden change of tack would pile further ludicrousness on top of the already established preposterousness. Please note that all the information that is being fed into the public domain, at this time, about how Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were poisoned comes from corporate-media. The Metropolitan Police refuse to confirm, we can surmise, because they are wary of committing to an official narrative. There will no doubt be observation of how the corporate-media milk is consumed before doing that.

A particular problem facing the Met Police was identified in the previous FBEL article, which took into consideration the news that investigators had found the “novichok-contaminated” item with a dragnet search:

…we should perhaps infer that Charlie Rowley did not lead police to the item. If, during the course of discussions with police, he was presented with a time frame in which to identify activity wherefore he discovered the item that contaminated him, and he was not able to comply, then the official narrative (as presented via corporate-media) will suffer yet another huge dent. Rowley was meant to have found the item on Friday 29th June.

The implication was that Charlie Rowley had no idea how he had been poisoned, and therefore police would have to invent a story explaining how the offending item was recovered back to the place where they said it was found. As such, we have crucial framework by which to examine any new information, and by which to gauge it.

All our initial information was garnered from reports of a hospital visit to Charlie, made in person on the 11th July, by Matthew Rowley, his brother – please see the FBEL article, The Big W stands for Wiltshire windfall – and police guards for Charlie Rowley, for coverage.

It appears that Matthew Rowley’s first visit was the only one in which he has seen his brother. Since then, all news about Charlie Rowley appears to have been conveyed to Matthew by at least two telephone conversations. Needless to say, we should be suspicious. As retold in the abovementioned FBEL article, after Rowley the elder’s first visit, he was quoted in corporate-media as saying of his younger brother that:

It was quite shocking. He’s not the Charles I know… I hardly recognised him to tell the truth.

In a batch of new information published in a Mirror article, 14th July, Matthew Rowley said this:

His speech was still a little slurred, but he sounded as OK as he can be and he’s ­compos mentis. He still had no idea what poisoned him and Dawn, but the nurses are fantastic.

It needs to be understood that this Mirror article predated revelations about a perfume bottle as a potential poison delivery system. However, it did present entirely new data about Rowley’s first visit that had not appeared in corporate-media before.

Obviously, there are two very important things to digest; firstly, Charlie Rowley is said to have had no idea about the circumstances surrounding his illness. However, Matthew Rowley originally reported that he was not allowed by police to discuss this information at the first interview between the brothers. So, Matthew Rowley was either lying about the conditions by which they met, or the new information is fabricated elaboration. The author’s bet is on the latter, because it reinforces a concept that supposedly came from police (as told by corporate-media) that Charlie Rowley could not explain his being in hospital through his having amnesia, but that in time he might recover from this deficiency (so as to provide support for the police-authorised narrative, as and when it had been decided upon).

Secondly, the impression that Matthew Rowley had of his brother’s dramatic alteration whereby he was unrecognisable is now extended beyond physical appearance into the realms of vocal expression of identity. When we consider all of this, we must contemplate the remote possibility that Matthew Rowley, who “had not seen his brother for a while” (source) never saw him in hospital either; indeed, it is entirely possible that the person who fed Matthew Rowley information during telephone calls was not his brother. This idea becomes important when pondering the potential fate of Charlie Rowley – and we will come to this at the foot of the page. Moreover, as an integral part of a system to beta test a narrative as leaked through an unwitting participant – to be considered “trusted” by the public – and then through a corporate-media that is always right on hand to translate it into the public domain, it would make sense that the source is producing exactly the kind of information that is required – it would be a job perhaps too exacting for a man who is supposedly very ill?

The other new significant information that was introduced regarding the first hospital visit is that Charlie Rowley became wildly upset, in Othellian manner, about the death of Dawn Sturgess. “They killed my girlfriend, they killed my girlfriend” is what he is meant to have wailed as grief stirred him into a frenzy – despite not being able to lift his head from his pillow.

We should note that the Mail attempted to present the convulsion as being Rowley’s first words after regaining consciousness. As Matthew Rowley was not present when this occurred, it is not clear how the occurrence is known of through his information, which the Mail purports to be retailing. There is another incidence told elsewhere [Mail article cited below] of a Rowley paroxysm in which the exact same words are used, so what we are looking at is in fact a slogan introduced by corporate-media to be inserted at will in coverage for the purposes of the emotional manipulation of audience. It was probably thought necessary to counter the notice taken by (very few) observers of Rowley’s behaviour, as described in the first reports of his interview with his brother, that appeared to be somewhat indifferent to news of Sturgess’ death.

On 15th July, the BBC reported that it had had a telephone conversation with Matthew Rowley. The author is under the impression that this engagement was not recorded or broadcast, but it could be that he is merely lacking information to the contrary. The BBC announced that from the interview it had conducted with Matthew Rowley, it was in possession of information pertaining to the object that had made Charlie Rowley ill. It was claimed that Matthew Rowley, via telephone, had obtained a fact concerning his brother’s poisoning:

The nerve agent that poisoned two people in Amesbury was contained in a perfume bottle, the brother of one of the victims has said.

Matthew Rowley said his brother Charlie, who is seriously ill in hospital, told him he had picked up the perfume bottle.

The Metropolitan Police, which is leading the investigation, refused to confirm the claim.

We should note that in some (popular) quarters of the alternative media this information was accepted, treated and analysed as if it was police-generated narrative. Some might call it sloppy, the author would suspect coordination. For there was also input from other areas of the Establishment clearly designed to create the impression of consensus out of thin air; to reinforce a narrative that had to carry weight just as if it had come from police. For instance, The Times omitted Matthew Rowley as middle man for the information†:

Charlie Rowley, 45, has said he came into contact with the nerve agent along with Dawn Sturgess, 44, after the pair picked up a discarded perfume bottle.

The reader should be aware that The Times has since changed the story at the URL where once this extract was to be seen. The leading focus, which is all one can see if one does not pay the subscription, is now on Putin and his noting a lack of evidence for novichok poisoning. The text in the extract may well be in the body that remains hidden for non-subscribers.

In another example, Sky News reported that the BBC radio had provided Salisbury MP John Glen with a platform to tell listeners that Sturgess and Rowley “may have come into contact with the bottle because of their ‘habit of looking into bins’”.

Doing its bit, the Mail produced the following text in an article that quoted the Mirror citing “intelligence” sources:

The perfume bottle lead supports the theory that a woman was involved in the initial hit by up to six people against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on March 4.

An intelligence source told the Daily Mirror: ‘It makes sense that a female officer may have been part of the team, playing a key role.’

Although slightly unintelligible, the Mail could here be referring to a rather novel idea that is now getting a lot of traction whereby a large party of people who were involved in US election meddling were also responsible for an assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal. But the important information is that to do with a woman being a key member of this team, and it is designed to lead the audience into making the obvious associations presented to them, so that they can rationalise about novichok in a perfume bottle being found in Salisbury. Note that this information is cited as coming from an intelligence agency source – which could mean that the writer of the article invented it – but it acts to construct the narrative by posing as, albeit unofficial, Government opinion.

The same Mail article, which was published on the morning of 17th July, goes on to report the following:

Mr Rowley, 47, said yesterday: ‘All I know, all Charles has said so far, is that it was a perfume bottle or an aftershave bottle, and they picked it up in a park, and they sprayed themselves with it…

‘It was nine days before they got ill that they picked it up. He’s not very healthy. It’s still 50/50, and his mental health has gone down as well.’

It is not known for sure if this particular information was obtained from a telephone conversation between the two brothers, but data that is about to be presented suggests that it was. As for its content, there is an extremely significant piece of new information to discuss. Sturgess and Rowley found the perfume bottle nine days before they got ill. Note, the information isn’t necessarily telling us that the couple sprayed themselves at that earlier time also, although at one point it might seem like it does.

For reasons we are about to see, we should perhaps regard what we are seeing here as a test for an explanation as to why Charlie Rowley cannot remember how the perfume came to be in his possession. Remember what was said at the top of this article about the police having a problem regarding not being able to explain how Rowley came by the object on the 29th June?

Later on the same day, the Mail published another article in which carried the following extracts:

Charlie, 45, is unable to remember where exactly he and his partner found the perfume bottle but it is understood to be near Salisbury city centre close to the spot the Skripals fell ill.

Matthew Rowley, who lives in Warminster, Wiltshire, told MailOnline: ‘My brother told me that he remembered that Dawn had sprayed the perfume on both her wrists.

‘He doesn’t recall much of what happened afterwards but that particular detail is stuck in his mind.

‘He also mentioned that he vaguely recollects there being an odd ammonia-type smell from the perfume.

‘I’ve asked him where he and Dawn picked up the bottle of perfume. Was it in Elizabeth Gardens or somewhere else in Salisbury? But he just cannot remember yet.

‘His memory has been affected by this but day by day he’s beginning to remember more.’

…Charlie Rowley, who is in a critical but stable condition in hospital, made the admission to his brother during an emotional phone conversation yesterday evening. The couple collapsed a few hours apart on June 30 at Mr Rowley’s flat in Avebury, Wiltshire.

[Matthew Rowley said] ‘The police are guarding him closely at the moment.

‘There has been talk of possibly relocating Charlie to a safe house, like Skripal and his daughter, when he’s able to leave hospital but nothing has been decided on yet.’

It constitutes quite a chunk of data to deal with. Firstly, note the police guard is still present; it begs the question, how does Rowley penetrate it especially when it previously forbade him to discuss the case with his brother. The answer is that a) it is not Matthew Rowley who is supplying information to the corporate-media, or b) the police are feeding him with material that they want him to pass on (and we’ve already discussed the possibility that Rowley is not in fact talking with his brother).

Naturally, there is a reiteration of Rowley’s memory deficit, which has been relied upon from the outset to explain why police are not retrieving information directly from Rowley, and is laugably unbelievable. However, now the concept has been consolidated by the idea that the perfume bottle was retrieved half way through June; or has it? The account in the extracts immediately above give the impression that the spraying of the perfume bottle is chronologically conjoined to activity related to finding the bottle – that activity that Rowley cannot remember. This would suggest that the perfume bottle was found on the 29th after all. We are none the wiser.

Of course, the piece of new information that is huge is the suggestion that Charlie Rowley is to disappear, never to be seen again: this must be our interpretation of what is meant by having him put in a “safe house” if the Skripals are to be used as an example. The reader can make of it what he will. We’ve already, hereabouts, discussed the possibility of Rowley as a patsy, and we’ve already drawn attention to “pay off” monies made available for the “extra costs” of Wiltshire police. Let’s put it this way: Charlie Rowley’s disappearance has been expected.

Update, 3.30pm (date as published):

The construction of the fable continues with a brand new Sky news report (published noon, today):

Dawn Sturgess died after being exposed to the nerve agent via what police believe to have been a small perfume bottle…

Mr Rowley has told relatives [they mean brother, but this suggests that more people have been in contact with him, and gives the impression of a real, living person] that he remembers giving Dawn what appeared to be a small perfume bottle before the pair were exposed to the nerve agent.

Within their complex investigation, detectives are looking at the possibility that Ms Sturgess tested the spray on her face and hands, believing it to be perfume.

The police have not publically commented on a perfume bottle to deny or confirm it. What is happening here is that Matthew Rowley’s information is being conflated with police knowledge, thus giving the public to understand it as an official position. Moreover, here is evidence of police/media collaboration, with the insight into the investigation, to support the assumption that the public is being asked to make.

† The Times is at it again. The following is from an article published around about the same time as this FBEL one. When we monitor output like this, what we can see in real time is the slow construction of a fable that is taken from something tantamount to hearsay, and made into something from the horse’s mouth.

So, once again, the insinuation is made that Charlie Rowley, the trusted victim figure, has directly provided evidence that attests to a fact in the case. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have no idea if the key witness is still alive, let alone what he has told anyone. And if you want to take things at face value, you have to say that the reporting is disingenuous, and then you’d have to ask why the need to do it.

Notice that the discovery date is 29th June – we should perhaps expect this to be one that is presented by the police whenever they are ready to commit.

The novichok victim Dawn Sturgess died after spraying the nerve agent on her wrists having found a discarded perfume bottle containing the liquid, her partner had said.

Ms Sturgess, 44, discovered the glass bottle during a day out with her partner Charlie Rowley, 45, on June 29 and took it back to his flat in Amesbury, Wiltshire.