This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/key-findings-from-british-report-into-former-spys-killing/2016/01/21/3612e356-c044-11e5-98c8-7fab78677d51_story.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Key findings from British report into former spy’s killing Key findings from British report into former agent’s killing
(about 3 hours later)
LONDON — Judge Robert Owen’s report into the killing of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko was published in Britain Thursday. Here are some of the key findings from the report:LONDON — Judge Robert Owen’s report into the killing of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko was published in Britain Thursday. Here are some of the key findings from the report:
THE POISONINGTHE POISONING
— “I am sure that Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Kovtun placed the polonium 210 in the teapot at the Pine Bar on 1 November 2006. I am also sure that they did this with the intention of poisoning Mr. Litvinenko.” — Litvinenko, a former security agent turned Kremlin critic, died on Nov. 23, 2006, from a heart attack resulting from a ingesting a fatal dose of polonium 210.
— “Mr. Kovtun told D3 (a witness whose name is redacted) ... that Mr. Litvinenko was to be poisoned rather than shot because ‘It is meant to set an example.’” — In his report, Owen outlines the abundant evidence that Litvinenko met fellow former agent Andrei Lugovoi and his associate Dmitry Kovtun for tea at the Millennium Hotel in London’s Mayfair three weeks earlier, on Nov.1, 2006.
— Owen said he is sure that Lugovoi and Kovtun placed polonium 210 in a teapot during that meeting with the intention of poisoning Litvinenko. He is also sure that both men had made an earlier attempt to poison him on Oct. 16.
— The report notes that prior to the poisoning, Kovtun had told a witness that Litvinenko was to be poisoned rather than shot because “it is meant to set an example.”
RUSSIAN STATE RESPONSIBILITYRUSSIAN STATE RESPONSIBILITY
— “I have found that Mr. Litvinenko was killed by Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Kovtun. They had no personal animus against Mr. Litvinenko. I am sure that they killed him on behalf of others.” — Owen finds that there is no evidence that either of the two main suspects had any personal reason to kill Litvinenko. “I am sure that they killed him on behalf of others,” he says.
— “The fact that Mr. Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium 210 that had been manufactured in a nuclear reactor suggests that Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Kovtun were acting for a state body, rather than (say) a criminal organization.” — The judge notes that although he cannot be sure that the poison that killed Litvinenko came from Russia, it is clear that it had been manufactured in a nuclear reactor, suggesting that the suspects “were acting for a state body, rather than (say) a criminal organization.”
— “When Mr. Lugovoi poisoned Mr. Litvinenko, it is probable that he did so under the direction of the FSB. I would add that I regard that as a strong probability. I have found that Mr. Kovtun also took part in the poisoning. I conclude therefore that he was also acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly through Mr. Lugovoi but probably to his knowledge.” — He concludes that there is a “strong probability” that Lugovoi and Kovtun poisoned Litvinenko under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency.
— The FSB operation to kill Mr. Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr. (Nikolai) Patrushev (then-FSB chief) and also by President Putin.” — He further concludes that the FSB operation was “probably approved” by then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and by President Vladimir Putin.
— He dismisses claims previously made by Lugovoi that he was the victim of a British set-up, saying he has not seen any evidence to back such a claim.
POSSIBLE MOTIVESPOSSIBLE MOTIVES
— “Mr. Litvinenko was, as a result of his actions both before and after leaving Russia, regarded as having betrayed the FSB. Moreover, according to Mr. Lugovoi, the FSB had received information that Mr. Litvinenko was working for British intelligence.” — Owen says that Litvinenko’s vocal criticisms of the FSB, his association with leading opponents of the Putin administration and his alleged work for British intelligence meant that “there were powerful motives for organizations and individuals within the Russian State to take action” against him — including killing him.
— “There was undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism between Mr. Litvinenko on the one hand and President Putin on the other. The history between the two men dated back to their (only) meeting in 1998, at a time when Mr. Putin was the newly appointed head of the FSB. ... In the years that followed, Mr. Litvinenko made repeated highly personal attacks on President Putin, culminating in the allegation of pedophilia in July 2006. — He points out that there was “undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism” between Litvinenko and Putin — the two men had met in 1998, when Putin was the newly appointed head of the FSB and when Litvinenko hoped he might implement reforms. “In the years that followed, Mr. Litvinenko made repeated highly personal attacks on President Putin, culminating in the allegation of pedophilia in July 2006,” Owen says.
... I am satisfied that, in general terms, members of the Putin administration, including the President himself and the FSB, had motives for taking action against Mr. Litvinenko, including killing him, in late 2006.”
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.