Salisbury Novichok Suspects’ TV Interview Discussed at Inquiry

An inquiry has been informed that the primary individuals suspected of involvement in the Salisbury nerve agent poisoning participated in a significant Russian television interview. Commander Dominic Murphy, who leads the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command, provided testimony on Wednesday to the investigation examining Dawn Sturgess’s death. While no charges have been brought regarding Ms Sturgess’s death, which occurred after her exposure to Novichok in 2018, individuals have been charged in connection with the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia. The Kremlin has consistently disavowed any role in the poisonings. Commander Murphy described the inquiry as a “very challenging investigation to lead” and “of a scale and complexity that I’m not sure we have seen before,” even considering the insights gained from the Litvinenko investigation. The inquiry viewed a 25-minute segment from a Russia Today interview featuring the suspects, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, whose true identities were subsequently disclosed as Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga. The interview gained notoriety at the time when the two individuals mentioned observing the 123m metre spire in Salisbury. Commander Murphy informed the hearing that characterizing their television appearance as a surprise would be a “slight understatement.” He stated, “It was quite a shocking thing to see and unexpected, but equally for various reasons quite welcome for them to go on TV like that.” The interview served to assist investigators in verifying their presence in CCTV footage. The two individuals also provided details concerning their possible movements, which law enforcement utilized in their inquiries. Nevertheless, the commander noted that their narrative was “very different from the movements we actually saw” and bore no resemblance to a typical tourist’s itinerary. The men claimed they were unable to use public transportation due to wintry weather, yet they had used it for their travel to and from Salisbury. The inquiry has been examining the interview as a potential component of a Russian disinformation campaign, a tactic Commander Murphy indicated had been observed before, for instance, in the Litvinenko inquiry. He mentioned that from the “very start,” high-ranking figures within Russia’s political establishment had issued statements aiming “to distance them from any involvement in what was happening.” He further stated that it had been proposed the UK carried out the operation to assign blame to Russia “as part of a sort of bizarre and surreptitious intelligence operation of some variety.” He noted that the television interview followed a similar pattern, implying there were “alternative explanations for the things we were saying.” The inquiry has been receiving additional information regarding the process by which the suspects’ genuine identities were revealed. This process entailed numerous discrepancies found in visa applications, photographs, financial records, bank information, and employment histories. Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga was understood to be Boshirov’s actual identity. This information came to light through several distinct methods. The inquiry was informed that a photograph of Chepiga, displaying “a strong resemblance to Boshirov,” was displayed on a “wall of heroes” at a military academy in Blagoveshchensk, a town in east Russia. Furthermore, he was reportedly seen in photographs taken at the wedding of the daughter of Andrei Averyanov, a leader within Russian military intelligence (GRU). The Commander added, “Importantly, whilst the individual that appears to be Boshirov is at the wedding, the Boshirov name does not feature in the table plan.” Boshirov and Petrov had duplicated specific information, such as account numbers and bank balances, across distinct visa applications. Commander Murphy stated that reports from the investigative organization Bellingcat “helped us to understand who Chepiga really was.” The suspects endeavored to incorporate as much authentic information as feasible into their applications “so they’re able to remember it.” Alexander Mishkin, a doctor employed by the GRU, was thought to be Petrov’s true identity. Passports issued under the names of Petrov and Mishkin shared identical birth dates, 13 July 1979, and the same birthplace, Arkhangelsk. In reference to GRU unit 29155, to which Petrov and Boshirov are thought to belong, Commander Murphy remarked that it was “frequently reported to have been involved in operations across the world.” Commander Murphy further elaborated on the perfume bottle containing Novichok, which was characterized as “similar in size to a cigarette box.” The item, bearing the Nina Ricci brand, was retrieved by Ms Sturgess’s partner in a sealed bag before it was opened, leading Ms Sturgess to spray herself with a fatal quantity. The commander stated that both the box and bottle were not authentic, and the nozzle affixed to the bottle was “extremely unusual,” having been engineered to keep the user at a distance from its contents. He was also questioned regarding alternative origins for the Novichok that poisoned Ms Sturgess. The commander asserted there is “no evidence whatsoever” that the Russians possessed the nerve agent domestically for other purposes, leading him to believe it was disposed of by the suspects following the poisoning of the Skripals. The Russian government has consistently refuted any participation in the Salisbury poisonings, and the investigation remains ongoing. BBC Sounds: Salisbury Poisonings Stay informed about the inquiry’s most recent developments through our podcast. Access the episode on BBC Sounds. Connect with BBC Wiltshire on Facebook, X, and Instagram. Submit your story concepts to us via email or WhatsApp at 0800 313 4630. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the material found on external websites. Learn about our policy regarding external linking.