Published On: Mon, Jul 9th, 2018

Sturgess murder enquiry should start with the Snap Fitness 24/7 Bonnie and Clyde

Share This

Some people think that police are going to investigate the death of Dawn Sturgess earnestly. Putting aside our own incredulity, based on years of observing police actively covering up and participating in State Crime, let’s allow this to be the case, and expect, therefore, the investigating detectives to prioritise the identification of the man and woman shown in a still, from CCTV footage, passing by Snap Fitness 24/7, in Salisbury, on the day in March when, as we are told, the Skripals were hospitalised with poisoning. This is where the Met Police’s investigation should begin, as a matter of finding a culprit. For, when there is murder, it is people that kill, not objects discovered in the bushes of a Salisbury park – and it will become clear in a moment why there is a need to state what should be a self-evident truism that any grown adult cannot deny.

There was a lot of excitement about the said CCTV-still image, all covered adequately enough in the FBEL article, The Skripal incident: have Britain’s finest cocked up… again? At one point in the life-cycle of the incident, or so certain elements of the corporate-media claimed, the image showed potential suspects for a crime committed against the Skripals – as evidenced by quotes from the Evening Standard…:

A hunt is under way for a woman with blonde hair seen on CCTV shortly before former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were found collapsed after a suspected assassination attempt.

The footage showed the young woman, carrying a red handbag, walking beside an older man not far from the bench where the pair were discovered in Salisbury on Sunday afternoon.

It was initially thought the CCTV images were of former double agent Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, shortly before they fell ill after being exposed to an unknown substance.

But a witness who had seen the pair before they collapsed has now reportedly claimed that Yulia is not blonde, but had red hair when she was seen in the city with her father.”

… and the Mirror:

Police are urgently trying to trace a blonde woman carrying a red handbag seen on CCTV shortly before a Russian double agent was found poisoned.

Footage emerged yesterday showing a man and woman ‘of interest’ walking through an alleyway 20 minutes before Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia were found in a critical condition…

It was initially thought the pair may be Skripal and his daughter – but pictures of Yulia show she had reddish-brown hair, while the woman on camera is blonde.

As far as we know, in terms of official treatment, a possible connection between this couple and the Skripals was deftly committed to the memory hole with a story about Russians who had flown out of the country before information pertaining to them could be actioned by police – as dealt with in the FBEL article, The Skripal circus rumbles on, unpacks big tent in the UNSC chamber. Roll up! Roll up!

In any case, at one time this pair were indubitably, by the police’s own admission, a “man and woman ‘of interest’”. The author proposes that, given the emergence into the public domain, through events linked to the Skripal incident (so police claim), of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, police should reapply their interest in this direction. Rowley and Sturgess are, after all, a man and a woman, who resemble(d) the CCTV couple more than approximately; they are, after all, a man and a woman who each resemble(d) the person of corresponding sex seen in CCTV: the man, with very little hair, the woman a blonde, with the same kind of hairstyle. Given the odds of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess separately doing this, and then emerging together as supposed collateral damage from that self same incident, it is perfectly reasonable for us to expect the Met Police to investigate the possibility that Dawn Sturgess is the woman, and Charlie Rowley is the man in the CCTV. No one would be suggesting actual culpability [on the parts of Sturgess and Rowley] , but what if the image shows that Sturgess was in the wrong place at the wrong time thus providing someone a motive to kill her? While Rowley is critically ill at the moment, there may yet be a chance to question him. And the pair do seem to have some very close friends, such as Sam Hobson, who apparently spent a great deal of time with them: could he not be questioned to establish [their] whereabouts to compare with the events of March 4th?

But don’t be surprised if none of this happens – and don’t make claims of police earnestness. One can quite readily deduce that the Met Police, who are in charge of an investigation into the death of Dawn Sturgess, are not interested in finding anyone who could be held responsible for the “attack” on the Skripals, or could give them information leading to that discovery. This deduction can be arrived at from the language being used by police and corporate-media to frame the scope of an investigation ensuing from Dawn Sturgess’ death, and also to manage public expectation, of course.

Last night, Sunday, 8th July, the Met Police released a statement in which it was implied that Dawn Sturgess had been murdered: their’s was a murder investigation. This has left a lot of people struggling, because there has to be premeditated intent to kill in order for the crime be murder, rather than the other sort of homicide, manslaughter. And the big stumbling block that people seem to be having trouble with is that bit in the official story where the death is clearly accidental. The notion of any “murder” having been committed hangs on the supposition that a substance that poisoned Sturgess (by exposure to it) was in a public environment, whereby it became a hazard, because it had been used in a previous attempted murder – i.e. that of the Skripals. Unfortunately, there is a problem – according to the Met Police’s own latest update (1pm, 9th July) – which affects the forming of the crucial supposition:

At this stage… [detectives from the UK’s Counter Terrorism Policing Network] are unable to say whether or not the nerve agent found in this incident is linked to the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

They are talking about a nerve agent supposedly found on the victims (even after their bathing prior to hospitalisation – see previous FBEL article). In order to establish that a murder has taken place, police need to link this material to a discarded object which then needs to be linked to the attempted murder of the Skripals – but this is not all. Police need to establish that an attempt was actually made on the Skripals’ lives, and that what happened to them was not accidental in itself. Of course, it’s a well known fact that there is no real progress in establishing that incident as a crime; as such, naturally, there are no real suspects. Remember, the police will by now have had a chance to interview the Skripals – it’s all too easy to forget that the Colonel and his daughter didn’t die. And yet it would appear, would it not, that they couldn’t throw any light, whatsoever, upon the supposed attack upon them? Evidence for an attempted murder was apparently absent even in a place where it might be most likely discovered. The British Government, having proclaimed the Russian State guilty, has been floundering ever since.

Of course now, and it is rather convenient in the circumstances just described, the death of Sturgess facilitates a hunt that can come to fruition, and can be stacked upon the construction of Russian culpability insisted upon by the British Government. This is why the Independent reports something that would have been considered ludicrous in the pre post-normal age:

A mother-of-three who was accidentally exposed to novichok has died in hospital as the hunt for the object that killed her continues.

The object killed her – not a murderer. The object killed Dawn Sturgess. This is really why there isn’t a hunt for a murderer; the actual identity of the murderer is surplus to requirements. The hunt is on for the culpable object: the one by which the British Government can appeal to the court of public opinion, and call a death a murder, and by which a crime can be used to malign Russia. That this strategy is at work is reflected in the abovementioned Met Police statement:

The investigation must be led by the evidence available and the facts alone. Our focus and priority at this time is to identify and locate any container that we believe may be the source of the contamination.

In the next instalment, what it really means that Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley look like the Snap Fitness 24/7 Bonnie and Clyde.

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