Published On: Wed, Jul 25th, 2018

Rowley’s found object and the Met’s poisoning material – and never the twain shall meet

Share This

It was “said” in the previous FBEL piece that “if the corporate-media ever does release pictures of Charlie Rowley relaxing at home in Muggleton Road, it will only prove that he’s alive”. It was also said that we would hear from Rowley again “because his particular circumstances require closure in the dim minds of the corporate-media believing public” – but it was thought certain that we wouldn’t see him again.

Well, there’s no legislating for how desperate the British Government is, and what lengths it will go to. It turns out that Charlie Rowley’s “safe house” is not safe from ITV’s Rupert Evelyn – who was at great pains on Twitter to point out that Charlie is in fact in temporary accommodation provided by Wiltshire Council – who put out an especial statement, that has just come to everyone’s attention (thanks to Evelyn), to let it be known that Charlie’s “home has been furnished and decorated”. So much for the complaints of no TV and nothing to do from Charlie as relayed to a wider audience through his brother Matthew – made more incongruous by the fact that Wiltshire Council insists that Rowley came straight from hospital to his new place. As was also written here before, such “stuff is clearly designed to have people talk about Rowley as a detainee of police. It is meant to fuel conspiracy theory chatter that will nevertheless reinforce the concept that Rowley is where the authorities say he is”.

And so it appears that ITV have obtained a face to face interview with Charlie Rowley. Embedded as segments within an Evelyn-narrated insistence upon unsubstantiated allegations concerning Russian Novichok poisoning attacks in Salisbury, it was very obviously propaganda that didn’t try to resolve any of the outstanding issues. Instead, there was a great belabouring of the talking point regarding Rowley’s finding and handling of a perfume bottle – an object that the Metropolitan Police are still yet to confirm as an article relating to the case. That’s why the exercise gave the impression of being an attempt by one faction in Government to force another’s hand. The Metropolitan Police would surely now find it very difficult to deny a place in an official narrative for a perfume bottle containing Novichok.

We did, of course, notice a detail in previous corporate-media reporting that should have prepared us for the spectacle that ITV presented last night:

A source who has been briefed on the progress of the investigation said: “They want to get out of Charlie the best account of where he was and what happened so they can get to the bottom of this matter.”

This elicited a comment in the previous FBEL article (link above): “It almost could be an admission that Rowley would be coached”.

Charlie Rowley has evidently mastered the “what happened” to a tee. It’s the “where” that has always been the problem, and remains as such to date; Rowley still knows nothing about it, or isn’t talking. The importance of this issue cannot be understated. But let’s take one thing at a time.

Remember when you thought that, according to the story constructed through corporate-media, the perfume bottle that Rowley found was one that someone had used to attack the Skripals with and had been discarded when the assassin took flight? Not so.

It was 3 by 3 inch box, half inch thick which contained a glass bottle so you had to remove the bottle from the Cellophane wrapper, put the pump dispenser on the bottle and I ended up tipping some on my hands but I washed it off under the tap.

This is the information Rowley proffered in the ITV interview. It looks like he assembled a brand new perfume spraying apparatus. But this is not the most significant concept revealed in this information. Apparently, Rowley assembled a poison delivery system that risked the life of the operative assembling it by resembling too closely, in its mechanics as well as its appearance, a perfume bottle.†

It is utter rot. It begins to look like Rowley has associated the incidence of Sturgess’ illness with an innocent encounter that she had with a fragrance that he had obtained for her‡, from a source he’d rather not reveal (and let’s note that he does have a criminal record – see the previous FBEL article).

Also consider the tentative language that Rowley uses when he talks about Sturgess’ activity with the perfume and what he supposes were the ramifications:

I do have a memory of her spraying it on her wrists and I guess rubbing them together. I think within 15 minutes I believe Dawn said she felt she had a headache.

“I guess”; “I think”; “I believe”; “she felt”. The FBEL assessment is that he has assumed cause and effect. He guesses that by rubbing her wrists, she did something that made a difference between her outcome and his. He thinks that the period of time ahead of Sturgess’ first reaction was significant – short enough to indicate exposure to a fast acting nerve agent. But then, he only believes that Sturgess indicated to him that there was a reaction – did she or didn’t she? At this point Rowley’s choice of words are very odd; by them we can get an impression of Sturgess detecting a possible reaction, but not being sure.

As for where Rowley obtained the perfume, and how it relates to a “bottle of Novichok” that police found at an address at Muggleton Road [so they say], this is an issue that has always been obfuscated with talk of Rowley’s hazy memory. As we have just realised, Rowley may have his own reasons for a bad memory regarding the failure to account for a perfume bottle being in his possession. However, Rowley’s selective amnesia will suit the British Government, which is in no apparent rush to have him mend the disjointed perceptions of his past. Because the British Government is trying to join up two stories that don’t join: Rowley’s perfume, and the Met Police’s “bottle of Novichok”.

This is what has been written before here at FBEL:

 In order to establish that a murder [of Dawn Sturgess] has taken place, police need to link this [poisoning] material to a discarded object which then needs to be linked to the attempted murder of the Skripals.

The poisoning material is the “bottle of Novichok”. The discarded object is Rowley’s perfume – another name for it is Rowley’s found object. There is no link, because the police cannot explain how the latter got back to Muggleton Road where they say they found it  – or, put in terms that are much more helpful to us, how it found itself in the possession of Charlie Rowley. Notice, in the segments of interview with Rowley, he never admits to finding the discarded article himself. This information is all supplied in Evelyn’s narration. Rowley does talk of those who would discard a poison for children to discover as being “irresponsible”, and so he supposes he knows something of the history of the object he had in his possession, and which he supposes he poisoned himself with. It doesn’t follow that he found the object. Again, he never declares that he found it. We know all too well by now that he doesn’t know how the object came to be in his possession. Any history that Rowley is aware of that links his found object – the perfume – with the “bottle of Novichok” could just as well have been supplied by the same people who told him that he’d been poisoned.

In truth, although it might appear as if the Establishment has pulled off a master stroke of validation for its fairy tale, nothing has really changed with the appearance of Charlie Rowley on ITV – except that we have received new data by which to continue to develop a framework for analysis constructed over the course of FBEL coverage. Previously, it was decided that

[Because police found the “bottle of Novichok” with a dragmet 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.

Evelyn’s piece informs its viewer of Charlie Rowley’s selective amnesia, not through Rowley’s own words, but through narration – and it tells us that our deductions have been confirmed:

He doesn’t remember precisely where he found he found the perfume but is sure that  it wasn’t in the Salisbury park where he’d been the day before falling ill – it’s possible he believes that he may have picked it up a couple of days earlier.

Because Rowley evidently cannot attest to finding a discarded “bottle of Novichok” on Friday 29th June, the narrative must change – because it has been damaged. And the distinct possibility of a significant narrative alteration of this nature was detected at FBEL ahead of time when it appeared to be “trialled” in output attributed to Matthew Rowley. It was described hereabouts as being necessary for an “explanation as to why Charlie Rowley cannot remember how the perfume came to be in his possession”.

And the following was also written in another place hereabouts:

Police should have by now extracted the data [about his find] from Charlie Rowley himself, and consequently they should be able to provide an explanation directly to the public. If this does not happen, then it points to the offending object having been planted.

You see, Charlie may have the discarded object, but his having it doesn’t account for the presence of the poisoning material that police found in a dragnet search. Moreover, Charlie’s discarded object appears as if it could be a completely harmless perfume bottle that certainly didn’t hurt him when he became exposed to its contents. If there is no account for how one thing could be the other, then there is no fact of one thing being the other. And if the discarded object does not account for the presence of the poisoning material, then the latter must have turned up by itself. How did it do that? Certain people who wanted it found put it there. Or, the people searching for it put it there. Or, the people searching for it invented the idea that they had found it.

Finally, to end for now, in his interview, Charlie Rowley makes a comment that may or may not contribute to a theory held at FBEL that his living in Muggleton Road has never been properly explained (he has never lived there, and the location was used as a stage set). Charlie Rowley says that he doesn’t want to return there, and blames bad memories. If all things were equal, we could sympathise and understand the sentiment. From a purely analytical perspective, we just need to notice that it doesn’t look like he is going to return to the property.


† It should be stressed that the perfume appears to have been of a make that Sturgess recognised. Evidently, it was an “expensive-looking” brand to boot.

‡ There is an idea being expressed on social media that the content of the bottle could not be a perfume because of the qualities of the liquid that Charlie Rowley describes (oily and odourless). What we need to remember is that Rowley would be describing his perceptions. Does anyone know how his ability to perceive the smallest detail accurately has been affected by his supposed drug addiction? In any case, oil-based fragrances do exist. If Dawn Sturgess reacted as described, then she clearly thought that she was spraying herself with perfume.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.