Litvinenko: Massive Media Fraud Uncovered

Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

News reports about the Litvinenko case are demonstrably false and unreliable.

By William Dunkerley

Did you hear that Great Britain has abandoned justice in favor of international politics in the Alexander Litvinenko case? He is the reputed former KGB spy who died mysteriously in London in 2006. If you've been reading recent news reports you likely heard of the UK's capitulation. A New York Times July 19 headline proclaimed, "Litvinenko Inquiry Blocked to Avoid Upsetting Russia, British Official Suggests."

What you may not have realized is that there is nothing in that headline that is true. It is an outright hoax.

The Times is not alone in this media fraud. Here are some other equally false variants: "Britain Says Ties with Russia Played Part in Litvinenko Ruling" (Reuters), "May [Home Secretary Theresa May] Cites Moscow Relations as Factor in Litvinenko Decision" (Financial Times), and "Litvinenko Inquiry Request Refused for Fear of Alienating Russia" (Guardian).

These headlines simply don't comport with the facts. The media are reporting on a July 17 letter issued by Home Secretary May. In it she reprimands Litvinenko coroner Sir Robert Owen for not fulfilling his statutory responsibilities. But nowhere does she even mention Russia or Moscow, much less suggest she or her government are in fear of alienating the country. She doesn't even hint at that. The claims in the headlines I've cited are patently false. And the headline intimations that there won't be a further investigation into the death? Completely bogus, too.

Stories of collusion between the UK and Russia to thwart justice in the Litvinenko case are not new, however. Even before May's letter was sent, a July 12 Daily Mail headline proclaimed, "UK 'colluded' with Kremlin to block inquiry into death of poisoned Russian spy Litvinenko."

BBC chimed in, too. In a story on the same day, it quoted an observer: "There's some sort of collusion behind the scenes with Her Majesty's government and the Kremlin to obstruct justice."

Didn't the media outlets check for facts? Indeed, are there facts to back up the allegations?

The media outlets offered no substantiation for the claimed collusion. A couple of sources were cited. But the sources gave no substantiation either. Suspiciously, they seem to be associates of the late Boris Berezovsky. He was a fugitive Russian oligarch hiding out in London. By his own admission, he had big plans to destabilize Russia, incite bloody revolution, and throw out the constitution. What's more, the Berezovsky-related sources cited in the press have demonstrated questionable credibility themselves. Why didn't the media scrutinize what those people were saying?

Berezovsky was a master media manipulator. His outlandish aspirations, and the counterfactual tales he uttered trying to achieve them, have received serious coverage by major media outlets around the world. This went on for over a decade. That adds up to a lot of journalistic malfeasance.

Alleging British-Russian collusion is a theme that the Berezovsky clan has used repeatedly. Following a coroner's hearing in late February, a media blitz emerged contending that Russia and Britain are conspiring to suppress potentially relevant secret British documents. Attorney Ben Emmerson said the British are "dancing to the Russian tarantella." He is a lawyer widely reported to have been paid by Berezovsky to represent the widow Litvinenko.

That seems to be the modus operandi of the Berezovsky group: A hearing or a judgment doesn't go their way. Then all of a sudden there appears a barrage of news and social media stories advancing scurrilous allegations that have no apparent basis in fact. The media outlets gobble up the sensational-sounding stories without checking the facts. And the public is ill-served by a host of reports that are simply journalistic garbage.

The July 12 specious stories flooded international news in the wake of a coroner's hearing on the case. Perhaps the most prevalent of those stories is the tale of the "public inquiry." Typical headlines included "UK Refuses to Hold Public Inquiry into Litvinenko Poisoning" (Reuters), and "Litvinenko: No Inquiry into Spy's Death" (Sky News). The Wall Street Journal tweeted, "UK Won't Hold Public Litvinenko Inquiry," as did the Huffington Post, "UK Declines to Hold Public Inquiry into Litvinenko Death."

These Berezovskyesque reports make it sound like the British government wants to put a lid on whatever it was that happened to Litvinenko. I don't know whether it does or not. But these media reports are fundamentally misleading.

You see, "public inquiry" doesn't mean what it sounds like. Common sense says the term means an inquiry that's out in the open. But in this case, the words are a tricky technical term. It's actually a misnomer. According to British law, a "public" inquiry actually can be conducted behind closed doors in secrecy. There never was any intention that the public inquiry be completely transparent. The media reports about this give entirely the wrong impression. I didn't see any that clarified the use of the term to set the record straight. Either they were just witlessly going along with the Berezovsky crowd, or they didn't care enough to understand what they were reporting. Or worse.

Many of the media stories spoke as if there naturally should be a public inquiry. It would have been worth asking why. There have been curious deaths of people far more important in the world than Litvinenko that were not subject of a truly open or public inquiry. The Warren Commission inquiry into the death of President John F. Kennedy, for instance, was conducted primarily in closed sessions. Even Elvis Presley didn't get a public inquiry into his death. Why Litvinenko?

Right from the beginning, the Litvinenko coverage has presented a panoply of misinformation. The basic media story that Litvinenko was murdered on orders of Russian president Vladimir Putin was a fabrication of Berezovsky's. I detailed that in my book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder.

There is ample evidence that any stories or allegations coming from the Berezovsky clan should receive extreme scrutiny. Berezovsky himself was declared "inherently unreliable" by a British high court judge.

Berezovsky is not the only unreliable one. His right-hand man claimed Litvinenko had dictated to him a deathbed allegation fingering Putin. But it was a hoax, too. The hoaxer later confessed that the so-called deathbed statement contained his words, not Litvinenko's.

Despite all that, most media outlets continue to refer to the deathbed accusation as though it were factual. And now they are referring to a potentially secret inquiry as "public." Perhaps the final kicker is the "spy" moniker widely given Litvinenko by the media. There's no reliable evidence that Litvinenko ever did espionage work. He wasn't a spy, and he never worked for the KGB.

What is most puzzling is why any legitimate journalist would believe any story told by anyone who was a member of Berezovsky's inner circle. Are the journalists severely gullible, or corrupt, or incompetent, or do they simply not care about getting things right? Whatever the case, it is a sad commentary on the media that almost all news stories about the Litvinenko case amount to nothing more than a journalistic flimflam.

UK Government Rebukes Litvinenko Coroner

Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Litvinenko coroner caught conducting illicit criminal investigation.

By William Dunkerley

Coroner Sir Robert Owen was taken to the woodshed by the British government. At issue is his conduct of the inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. A reputed former KGB spy, Litvinenko died suspiciously in London in 2006.

Owen's rebuke came as a result of the course he had charted for himself in investigating Litvinenko's death. The coroner's statutory responsibility, according to Home Secretary Theresa May, is to "ascertain who the deceased was, and how, when, and where he came by his death." But Owen was not focusing on those issues; he was not doing his job.

Instead, Owen had been conducting a rogue criminal investigation, looking for Russian state involvement in the death. The late Boris Berezovsky, a fugitive Russian oligarch who had been hiding out in London, had accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of culpability. He never presented any evidence, however. But Owen was apparently picking up where Berezovsky left off.

The Home Secretary reined in Owen, pointing out that he had overstepped his bounds. She stated that the law does not allow a coroner to determine criminal liability.

Earlier news reports uncovered the fact of Owen's illicit criminal investigation. In response, he concocted a scheme to transfer his work to a different venue, one without the restrictions placed on coroners regarding criminality. It was a clever strategy.

But when Owen wrote to the government requesting the transfer, he misrepresented the circumstances of the case. He said, "It is a highly exceptional situation when the victim of what appears to have been a murder is interviewed by police before he dies, and makes a public statement in which he names those whom he suspects of being responsible for his death…"

However, the public record shows that Litvinenko made no such statement to the police. It is true that there was a written public statement accusing Putin that was attributed to Litvinenko. It was released after his death. But that document has been shown to be a fraud. The statement was a hoax, and the hoaxer has publically confessed

At last count, the Litvinenko inquest has spent over $2 million of British taxpayer money. Despite all the flurry of activity created by Owen, there does not seem to have been any progress toward establishing the cause and manner of death. The work thus far seems to have been a complete waste of money.

What more will it take for the coroner to rule on the specific circumstances? Secretary May called Litvinenko's death an "apparent murder." Was it indeed a homicide? Or was it a suicide or accident? It is hard to understand why the coroner could not have ruled on that long ago.

Likewise on the cause of death. Many media reports claim that radioactive polonium was the agent of death. Other reports say the cause was thallium poisoning. It should be possible to answer this question with scientific evidence. Either there is evidence, or there isn't.

Litvinenko's death happened nearly seven years ago. If sufficient evidence is not on hand, perhaps it is time to admit that the cause and manner of death are indeterminable, and then simply close the case. Why spend more British taxpayer money to accomplish nothing?

Litvinenko Recap

Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Articles by, and interviews with, author William Dunkerley (in English and/or in Russian)

In Death Berezovsky Makes Fools of Media
April 5, 2013
Tributes to Berezovsky are reminiscent of the deathbed statement of Alexander Litvinenko.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Berezovsky Murdered by Journalists?
April 2, 2013
The coroner was investigating Berezovsky's possible culpability in Litvinenko's death.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Berezovsky’s “murder”: “grave suspicions” instead of evidence - again
March 27, 2013
The media frenzy surrounding Berezovsky's death is reminiscent of that which was touched off by the mysterious 2006 death of Alexander Litvinenko.
Read: Voice of Russia

British Litvinenko Death Inquest Descends into Farce
March 18, 2013
The main question arising from last Thursday's hearing in the British Litvinenko death case is whether anyone is actually in charge of the proceedings.
Read: The American University in Moscow

British Litvinenko Case against Russia Disintegrating
March 5, 2013
The British case against the Russian state in the Alexander Litvinenko matter seems to be teetering on the verge of collapse.
Read: Komsomolskaya Pravda

Дурная бесконечность «дела Литвиненко»
5 Марта 2013
Затейники «полониевого скандала» теперь обвиняют Лондон в том, что он «танцует под дудку Кремля».
Текст: Комсомольская прадва

Russia Needs an Anti-Corruption Drive with a New Focus!
February 14, 2013
--Also of interest.
Read: OpEdNews.com

Vladimir Putin's PR Blunders Earn Him Controversial Nomination
January 17, 2013
In the Litvinenko matter the media story that blamed Putin was fabricated by his arch enemies.
Read: OpEdNews.com

Putin Bans Orphan Adoption by Americans
December 28, 2012
--Also of interest.
Read: OpEdNews.com

It's Time for Putin and Obama to Have an Urgent Talk
December 28, 2012
Few Americans know that Russia has non-state enemies who maliciously seek to destabilize the country and undermine the constitution.
Read: Komsomolskaya Pravda
(Русская версия) -- Магнитский - Яковлев: пусть объяснятся президенты. Такое ощущение, что американские и российские законодатели ведут себя по принципу «сам дурак».
Текст: Комсомольская прадва

Putin's Opposition Scores Big at Critical London Hearing
December 20, 2012
Specious media accounts are not new in the Litvinenko case.
Read: Eurasia Review

Moscow Times Files False Report on Litvinenko Hearing
December 17, 2012
News report of the hearing doesn't match what really transpired.
Read: Johnson's Russia List

Prosecutorial Indiscretion In Litvinenko Case
December 11. 2012
Suspicious connections in the Alexander Litvinenko death case prosecution have received little media attention.
Read: Eurasia Review

Startling New Twist in Litvinenko Death Case
November 12, 2012
The British inquiry into the 2006 death of Alexander Litvinenko has taken a dramatic turn in direction.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Интервью с американским политологом Уильямом Данкерли
24 Октября 2012
Аудио: Радио "Комсомольская правда"

Russia Should Stop Shying Away from Defending Itself in the Foreign Press
October 22, 2012
The Alexander Litvinenko case illustrates the process through which Putin is regularly slimed internationally.
Read: Russia: Other Points of View

России пора перестать стесняться контрпропаганды
22 Октября 2012
Весь сюжет о том, что именно российская власть стоит за убийством Литвиненко явно сфабрикован Березовским и его соратниками.
Текст: Комсомольская прадва

Judging Putin
October 16, 2012
The Alexander Litvinenko case exemplifies the real process through which Putin is regularly slimed internationally.
Read: Eurasia Review

Judge Orders Inquest in Case of Former KGB Officer Poisoned in UK
September 24, 2012
There's been no good explanation as to why it's taking so long.
Listen: Voice of Russia

How Pussy Riot and Berezovsky Plot Revolutions
September 12, 2012
Interesting intersections between the Pussy Riot story and false media accounts claiming that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in London in 2006 by Russian security agencies.
Read: The Moscow Times

Does Pussy Riot News Story Have Hidden Agenda?
September 5, 2012
It was startling to see in media reports that people and organizations that played key roles in the fallacious Litvinenko allegations are also connected to Pussy Riot.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Al-Jazeera, Others Spread Counterfactual Stories about Litvinenko, Arafat
August 20, 2012
When suspicion broke out that Yasser Arafat had been poisoned with polonium, comparisons were made with the Alexander Litvinenko case. But like most reportage about Litvinenko, the comparisons didn't match the facts.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Magnitsky Bill Drags Senators into Foreign Plot
August 14, 2012
Senators get hoodwinked by foreign agitators. Perhaps out of embarrassment over their susceptibility to being duped, key senators refuse comment on their positions. Belief in fantastical stories about Alexander Litvinenko seems to be part of it.
Read: The American University in Moscow

Американские пешки в антироссийской игре
5 Июля 2012
В 2007 году член палаты представителей Илеана Рос-Лехтинен внесла документ, обвиняющий российские власти в отравлении бывшего «шпиона КГБ» Александра Литвиненко в Лондоне.
Текст: Комсомольская прадва

Congress Members Duped by Foreign Agitators -- Again!
June 11, 2012
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and colleagues become pawns of international insurrectionists. Their gullibility regarding fabricated stories about Alexander Litvinenko plays a key role in this drama.
Read: OpEdNews.com

Bye-Bye Government-Sponsored Media in Russia
May 21, 2012
--Also of interest.
Read: OpEdNews.com

Полониевый скандал раздула британская пресса
26 Января 2012
В загадочном и дурнопахнущем сериале об отравлении Александра Литвиненко в Лондоне начинается новый сезон.
Видио: телеканал "Комсомольская правда"
Текст: газета "Комсомольская правда"

100,000 Euros to Love the Blasphemers

Posted on Friday, August 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Komolskaya Pravda, August 30, 2012

By William Dunkerley

From the beginning of the unfolding Western press scandal surrounding Pussy Riot, I had a vague feeling that it was very similar to how the media fabricated the 2006 "murder" of Alexander Litvinenko in London.

From the Western media, you could hardly tell what Pussy Riot was specifically trying to do. In most reports it was stated that the group was in favor of freedom of speech and against Putin's repression. One prominent American professor even wrote an article that compared the Pussy Riot participants to the best heroes of Dostoevsky. Pussy Riot represents "a long-standing tradition of dissent by the Russian intelligentsia," he added.

The Western coverage seemed to be following roughly the same scheme that was used in the Litvinenko story. There the press reported that a dissident was killed on order of the Russian authorities. That was, despite the fact there is still no official conclusion by the relevant British authorities that Litvinenko's death was a homicide. Last year I wrote about this in my book The Phony Litvinenko Murder.

I was startled when the same characters who were behind the fabrication of the Litvinenko coverage began to appear in the Pussy Riot case.

Wired magazine interviewed Alex Goldfarb, who said that he was inspired by Pussy Riot: "The grace and courage and intelligence with which they handled themselves, is all amazing of course." This is apparently the same Goldfarb, reportedly a longtime associate of Boris Berezovsky, and who served as the principal spokesperson in the fabricated media stories regarding Litvinenko.

I wondered whether there were other intersections in the two cases. And just then, a colleague of mine received an email from a well-known British music agent with whom he has a business relationship. The agent reported he was contacted by the London PR firm Bell Pottinger, offering his artists "up to 100,000 euros for a statement in support of the Pussy Riot." Bell Pottinger was known in the Litvinenko case to be working on behalf of Berezovsky in support of his media assault on Putin!

Is the commonality of these players in the two seemingly disparate cases just a strange coincidence? Or are the cases both examples of the same thing: an organized ploy to destabilize the Russian administration? I don't know the answer to those questions. But it seems to me, this is something that the public champions of Pussy Riot and the journalists covering the story should be looking into.

(Article in Russian on Komsomolskaya Pravda website here.)

The Litvinenko Case -- A Costly Folly

Posted on Monday, May 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Londoners asked to foot $7 million bill for dead-end Litvinenko death probe.

By William Dunkerley

"EXCLUSIVE: Town Hall stunned by £1m bill to hold inquest into death of poisoned former KGB agent," shouted the lead headline in a recent Camden New Journal. Camden is a tiny borough, a constituent part of the City of London. One million pounds, or about $1.5 million, would be its share of what's expected to be a yearlong inquest into Alexander Litvinenko's death. Borough leaders fear that the cost of the Litvinenko case will take money away from important public services and school repairs.

But the newspaper's story missed the real headline here: No official certification has ever been issued as to the cause and manner of death. So it's not certain his death was a homicide or that it was polonium that killed him.

That means Camden's money will go to determine who did it, before it has even been concluded what was done! That's the big story here. Why would anyone want to pay such a high price for that kind of nonsense?

What's more, if the coroner were to finally issue a verdict on who or what was responsible for the death after these five and a half long years, who would believe it? There have been too many suspicious circumstances.

--Why has it taken so long?

--What's really behind the fate of former coroner Andrew Reid? Just last January he finally asked MI5/MI6 to release information about the Litvinenko case. Then he was reportedly hospitalized for appendicitis. And soon thereafter he was removed from all cases amidst surprising allegations that he had hired his wife back in 2009. Why was that just coming up now?

--Remember also the notorious deathbed accusation that Vladimir Putin was behind the poisoning. It turns out it was written by someone else and misrepresented to be Litvinenko's own words.

I detailed yet more of the nonsense surrounding the Litvinenko case in my book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder.

The Camden New Journal even reported that in 2008 someone tried to burn down the hospital building in which Litvinenko had been treated. Sniffer dogs discovered three "fire accelerators" planted in the basement. How weird is that?

It’s hard to imagine how this case can ever be solved satisfactorily. But it looks like someone will be footing the $7 million bill for continuing the nonsense.

The Litvinenko Contamination Case is Contaminated

Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Why is the 2006 poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko still unsolved today? Is it likely this high-profile case may never be solved?

By William Dunkerley

Mention the Alexander Litvinenko case, and people think of radioactive contamination. Now, though, it's looking like the case itself has become contaminated.

The London Coroner's office has played a central role in the Litvinenko case. But these days it appears to be in disarray and hiding from the public.

What's Behind This?

While researching my book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder, I broke the news that the Coroner never had concluded that Litvinenko was murdered. All those media reports that said he was are simply unfounded speculation. Details are in the book.

After that inquest, Coroner Dr. Andrew Reid issued a statement that begins: "Following the pre-inquest review held today at St Pancras Coroners Court I would like to confirm that I am yet to provide a written ruling to the properly interested persons and potential properly interested persons. Therefore I have indicated my preliminary view that there should be further investigations into the wider circumstances about which allegations were made at the hearings today."

No credible explanation has been given as to what really happened to Litvinenko. Why didn't the Coroner wrap up the case years ago? Until last fall, there was just dead silence from the Coroner.

The first sign of life came in fall 2011. That's when the Coroner announced that finally an inquest would be held. It took place on October 13, 2011. No, it wasn't Friday the 13th; it was a Thursday. But given all the events that followed, it might as well have been a Friday the 13th. It's that strange.

What did he say? The statement certainly is not written in plain English.

Just as an aside, I ran a Fog Index calculation on his whole statement. I publish Editors Only (www.editorsonly.com), a monthly for magazine editors. We often pick passages from magazines or newspapers for Fog analysis. It is a measure of how readable copy is. Reid's statement has a Fog Index of over 25. That number tells how many years of formal education are needed to understand it. Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and the Bible average around 6. Publications like Time and the Wall Street Journal come in around 11. This article up to the Reid quote scores about 10. At over 25, Reid's statement seems unnecessarily complex. Was he trying to be obfuscatory?

Two things that can be gleaned: The inquest wasn't really an inquest. Now Reid calls it a pre-inquest. And, allegations were made by someone during the pre-inquest. But Reid doesn't say what they were.

He goes on to textually mumble about possibly bumping the case to a higher judicial official. Reid also suggests he's still awaiting a further decision from the prosecutor. It's about Litvinenko's death. But he doesn't tell more. He then says he's interested in the outcome of an appeals court matter. It apparently involves some people connected with the Litvinenko case. But Reid doesn't provide the who or the what.

Then, in a Friday-the-13th-weird series of events, (1) Reid calls for MI5 and MI6 to release secret documents about Litvinenko (January 28 - http://bit.ly/Jp21gR), (2) Reid is hospitalized for appendicitis (January 31 - http://bit.ly/J6m2LW), and (3) Reid is removed from all cases amidst surprising allegations that he had hired his wife back in 2009 (February 9 - http://bit.ly/I29cKl).

It Adds Up To...

So what we have is a Coroner's office that after five years hasn't been able to make up its mind about what happened to Litvinenko. Then, when Coroner Reid finally gets off the dime and calls for secret files on Litvinenko to be opened, he suddenly is hospitalized for appendicitis. And next, without skipping a beat, supposed dirt on him dating back three years is dug up and he's abruptly removed from the case.

Whatever Reid had started, he wasn't going to be allowed to finish.

After several tries at asking the Coroner's press office to explain what really happened to Reid, no answers were forthcoming. A journalist I know who called seeking to interview Reid was told that he's persona non grata. Indeed!

If the Coroner's office were finally to render a verdict about Litvinenko's death, who would believe it? By its own bumbling actions, the office has earned itself an Inspector Clouseau image. It has indeed contaminated the Litvinenko contamination case. It's hard to imagine how the officials could explain their way out of this one.

Another Contamination Source

The folly of the Coroner's office isn't the only contamination of the case, though. There's also the way in which the media have confounded any attempt by the public to achieve an accurate understanding of what happened.

The media story about Alexander Litvinenko, in a nutshell, is this: Former KGB Spy Litvinenko was murdered by Russian president Vladimir Putin who poisoned him with radioactive polonium.

But if you look for the facts behind those allegations, you come to realize that none of that story may be true. Indeed, it really appears to be a sheer fabrication perpetrated in the media.

Not one aspect of that media story has a basis in fact.

The Real Story

In my research, I found evidence that Litvinenko

--did not work for the KGB, and

--he never was a spy.

I produced a video short about this. It's called The Russian Spy Story Unraveled. It is a free supplement to my book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder (www.OmnicomPress.com/plm). You can see the video here: www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv2.

Another troubling media issue concerns who was responsible for Litvinenko's death. First the news named Italian Mario Scaramella as the poisoner. Then it switched to Vladimir Putin. And finally it named Andrei Lugovoi who presumably did it on behalf of Putin.

But the media had earlier described Lugovoi as a "foe of the Kremlin," and an "anti-Putin crusader." Why would Putin have chosen an anti-Putin crusader to do his dirty work? You'll never find out from the media reports. They never sought to reconcile that conflict. That's some reporting, isn't it?

I did another video, this time on that topic. It's called The Who Done It Fraud, again, a supplement to my book. You can see the video here: www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv1.

The media nonsense about Litvinenko hits another low, and now it's on the widely-reported deathbed statement. You may recall that this was a written statement that mysteriously appeared right after Litvinenko's death. Explosively, it named Russian president Vladimir Putin as his poisoner.

But that was a real switcheroo. Earlier the media reported that Litvinenko believed he was poisoned by Mario Scaramella. Litvinenko disclosed that in a November 11, 2006 interview broadcast by BBC. On American TV, Yuri Felshtinsky who co-wrote with Litvinenko a book about terrorism in Russia, said Litvinenko told him he was sure it was Mario Scaramella that did it.

The switcheroo first surfaced in media reports almost a week before Litvinenko's death. They said Litvinenko had fingered Russian president Vladimir Putin. But, the media weren't quoting Litvinenko. Instead their source was Boris Berezovsky, a British tycoon who is a fugitive from Russia, his former homeland. But no media outlets seemed to have heard this directly from Litvinenko.

The next shoe dropped when Litvinenko died. In the so-called deathbed statement, Litvinenko himself spoke out to the world to accuse Putin. Media accounts said Litvinenko dictated the statement in his own words. But later it comes out that he didn't! The statement was written by someone else and was passed off as something of Litvinenko's. You can see my video on this slice of the case here: www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv3.

Are you getting a clearer picture of just how completely contaminated this case is?

It Gets Even Stranger

Just when you think the Litvinenko case couldn't become more contaminated, it does.

Recently Litvinenko's brother, Maxim, challenged the media's non-fact-based claims about polonium. This took place in an interview on Russian TV. Maxim asserts that the lab tests that found polonium in Alexander's urine were rigged. Maxim said that polonium was somehow introduced into Litvinenko's urine specimen that went out for testing. That would mean Litvinenko may not have died of polonium contamination.

But, Maxim didn't offer any facts to back up his story. So I wrote to the Coroner's office seeking clarification: "In a recent interview Maxim Litvinenko, brother of Alexander Litvinenko, suggests that polonium detected in Alexander's urine was a result of deliberate contamination of the urine bag below his bed. Does the Coroner's office have any information that would conflict with that allegation? I'd be grateful for your clarification. Thanks."

The reply?

"We do not have a comment on this. We are awaiting an inquest date."

Oh, another inquest? I followed up: "Thank you. When do you expect the inquest to take place? Who will be convening it?"

The answer?

"The coroner has appointed a legal team of solicitors and counsel. Further hearing dates will follow and properly interested persons and media will be notified in due course."

So Reid has been off the case since February 9, and they're still thinking about what to do next in this November 2006 case! Does this sound as fishy to you as it does to me? Are they trying to hide something?

In any event, the credibility of the Coroner's office seems to have been irreparably damaged regarding Litvinenko. How can the case ever be solved in a way that is believable?

What's more, there are now many entrenched and vested interests with a stake in maintaining the illusions perpetuated by all the nonsensical news stories. Very conspicuous leaders in the UK and the US have taken strong positions based on those fallacious reports. These powerful people will look mighty foolish if no legitimate evidence is ever found and presented to support the "Putin did it" scenario.

Is that a reason why the London Coroner's office seems to be in such disarray? Is it why the officials seem so unwilling to provide clear and responsive answers?

I don't know if it is. But the whole Litvinenko case seems to have become too contaminated by the nonsensical fantasy of the media reports and the folly of the Coroner's office.

Together they've reduced the matter to nothing more than a fantasy adventure with Litvinenko playing the role of Alice in Wonderland and the Coroner's office filling in as Inspector Clouseau.

Gorbuntsov Case is No Litvinenko Story

Posted on Friday, March 30, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Posted on Friday, March 30, 2012 at 5:46 PM A recent Guardian story was headlined, "Attack on Russian banker in London leaves trail of clues back to Moscow." Doesn't that sound reminiscent of many media reports in the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning? In that case the "trail of clues" was radioactive. Literally! It involved radioactive polonium, a substance widely reported to have been responsible for Litvinenko's death. And the media allegations of who was behind the poisoning were explosive. They alleged the culprit was Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The Guardian story reports on the recent shooting in London of a former Russian bank owner, a man named German Gorbuntsov. He has been living in London since 2010, the reports say.

The Gorbuntsov story's similarity to the Litvinenko case seems to stop with that Guardian headline. As suggestive it might sound of Kremlin involvement, this story makes no such allegation. That's a refreshing change of pace from the Litvinenko coverage. It was, and still is, replete with unfounded allegations, explanations that don't make sense, and conflicting information.

Our book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder by William Dunkerley, thoroughly debunks the troubled media coverage of the case. In a new supplementary video, the author questions the authenticity of Litvinenko's well-publicized deathbed statement. You can see that video here.

The Faked Deathbed Statement

Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM

--Who really wrote it?

By William Dunkerley

News outlets reported that from his deathbed, reputed former spy Alexander Litvinenko accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of poisoning him.

But there is one very big thing wrong with that story. The news media had no factual basis for it. The story was absolutely fabricated. In fact, a culprint has come forward and confessed that it was he, not Litvinenko, who write the so-called deathbed statement.

The Faked Deathbed Statement is the third in a series of supplements to my recent book entitled The Phony Litvinenko Murder. The book examines the media coverage of the purported poisoning of Litvinenko by radioactive polonium.

This new video offers recorded proof from Litvineko himself that flatly dispels the specious media reports on the deathbed statement.

The Faked Deathbed Statement video can be viewed at www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv3 or on YouTube.com.

The Russian Spy Story Unraveled

Posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM

-- It turns out he wasn't a spy!

By William Dunkerley

The worldwide media have been caught fabricating facts in the Alexander Litvinenko spy story. A new video shows that the famous spy never was a spy.

But in late 2006, reports naming Litvinenko a former spy were big headlines. World media outlets were reporting that the former KGB spy was murdered on orders of Vladimir Putin.

The Russian Spy Story Unraveled video is the second in a series of supplements to my recent book entitled The Phony Litvinenko Murder. The book examines the media coverage of the purported poisoning of Litvinenko by radioactive polonium.

In the new video, a list of famous Russian spies is presented. Litvinenko stands out as the only one whose spy status was never reliably affirmed. Indeed, two sources have come forth contradicting the media's spy assertion. They explain that Litvinenko's security service job involved working against organized crime in Russia. He wasn't a spy, and didn't work for the KGB. In my book I present details of this from a well-informed, former instructor at the FSB Academy. The FSB is Russia's security service. Now in the new video, you can hear this directly from Litvinenko's widow, in her own words.

Nonetheless, media outlets insisted that Litvinenko was a spy. Typical headlines included:

--Ex-KGB spy 'poisoned by alpha radiation'
--Mysterious case of the poisoned spy
--Ex-KGB agent's poisoning echoes Cold War plot
--Radiation Poisoning Killed Ex-Russian Spy

I asked the media outlets behind each headline why they called Litvinenko a spy? They all refused to answer.

Another noteworthy headline said:

--Litvinenko spy story could be acted out by Johnny Depp

So on top of all the specious media coverage, it appears that a movie may be produced about a spy who wasn't a spy.

That's fitting, in a sense. Depp previously starred in the Walt Disney production of Alice in Wonderland. Like Alice, the Litvinenko story told by the media seems to be a fantasy adventure filled with illogical nonsense, as well. The basic premise of the story, that Litvinenko was a former spy, seems to lack a factual basis. It is a concoction. The media reports just don't hold up to scrutiny.

The Russian Spy Story Unraveled video can be viewed at www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv2 or on YouTube.com.

The Who-Done-It Fraud

Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM

-- Was he really murdered?

By William Dunkerley

The ubiquitous "who murdered Alexander Litvinenko" news story has turned out to be a fraud.

In late 2006, world media outlets were reporting that the former KGB spy was murdered on orders of Vladimir Putin. It was one of the biggest, most sensational news stories of the time. Now a new video turns that account upside down.

The video shows that Litvinenko wasn't a spy, he never worked for the KGB, and the claim that Vladimir Putin ordered the murder is not fact-based. It was merely an allegation made by an arch-enemy of Putin's. What's more, the London coroner hasn't ever concluded that Litvinenko was even murdered.

The widely-disseminated news stories about Litvinenko don't match the facts. The stories appear to have been fabricated.

A video titled The Who-Done-It Fraud is the first in a series of supplements to my recent book entitled The Phony Litvinenko Murder. The book examines the media coverage of the purported poisoning of Litvinenko by radioactive polonium.

The new video presents actual, rarely-heard audio recordings of Litvinenko himself, speaking from his hospital bed less than 2 weeks before his death. In it he clearly suggests who he believes poisoned him -- and it isn't Putin. Also on the video is an exclusive recording of a close associate of Litvinenko who backs up Litvinenko's belief about his poisoner.

The video traces the strange odyssey of the changing stories told by the media about who was responsible for the poisoning. First the media reports accused one person, then another, and then still another. But the media never explained why their accusations were shifting.

Certainly there must be some significance to why the identity of the accused person has mysteriously shifted. But media reports didn't dig into that mystery. They just ignored this very significant aspect of the case. Was that a result of widespread journalistic incompetence? Or was there something sinister behind the curious nature of the media reports? We're just left to wonder.

But the real kicker in the story is this:

It's not even certain that Alexander Litvinenko was actually murdered!

That's right. The London coroner never ruled the death to be a homicide. The Who-Done-It Fraud video presents exclusive confirmation of this, direct from the coroner's office.

But the worldwide media have been mum on that issue, too.

In fact, the world media outlets were initially very quiet about the Litvinenko story altogether. Litvinenko was apparently poisoned on November 1, 2006. The BBC Russian Service ran the story on November 11, in its transmissions aimed at Russia's population. But there was nary a word about the case back home in London. Other British media weren't covering it either. Isn't that puzzling? The poisoning happened in London. Litvinenko was a British citizen. We know from the BBC Russian Service report that at least someone in the British media knew about the story. But there was no coverage.

It could be because Litvinenko just wasn't considered newsworthy. After all, his name wasn't exactly a household word at that time. Few people around the globe really knew who he was, much less cared. So perhaps the decision not to cover the poisoning of an unknown actually represented good journalistic judgment.

That all changed around November 19, however. News of the Litvinenko poisoning began bursting out all around the world. The Who-Done-It Fraud video explores this phenomenon, and suggests a foreshadowing event that may have been the game changer.

But come to think of it, if Litvinenko was basically not newsworthy, why was there such an enormous eruption of interest that late in the game?

Media outlets called the case a James Bond mystery. But to me, their coverage was more like Alice in Wonderland: a fantasy adventure filled with illogical nonsense, and without a factual basis. The underlying premises of the media coverage just don't hold up to scrutiny.

The Who-Done-It Fraud video can be viewed at www.OmnicomPress.com/plmv1 or on YouTube.com.