I'm quite surprised at how this is developing, and I mean Ian Fleming could have
thought of that ;)
On 12/10/06,
Roger Eichhorn <eichhorn@xxxxxx> wrote:
The only connection might be is that you can dismantle four or five
anti-static brushes and get enough Polonium 210 to do the job.
Roger
On Dec 9, 2006, at 7:51 PM, Guy Glorieux wrote:
> This is completely off topic.
> It has nothing to do with photography.
> And Andrew may want to put an end to this immediately if he so
> desires.
>
> But... SWhat an incredible plot!
>
> The Alexander Litvinenko affair is turning into such a complex spy-
> vs-spy story that even the best of John LeCarré pales in comparison.
>
> What? In these days and age where the easiest thing to do is to
> get a gun and kill people, why would someone with an incredibly
> complicated mind decide to murder a former KGB spy with the most
> complicated method of all: a totally obscure radioactive substance
> that his normally fairly harmless unless absorbed internally. In
> which case death is inevitable after several weeks of highly
> visible collateral damages...
>
> Here are a few unanswered questions which linger in my mind:
> -- Why would someone in their right mind want to use such an
> incredibly / repeat incredibly / difficult substance to acquire and
> such an incredibly complex method to kill?
>
> -- Why did Litvinenko not dictate all / repeat all / its covert
> knowledge to a public writer in order to make good for his murder?
>
> -- Why did it take so long before Litvinenko's russian contacts
> Kovtun and Lugovoi begin to also show radioactive poisonning?
>
> -- Why is it that italian contact Scaramella claimsd that he
> received his dose and has so far shown little evidence of radiation
> poisonning?
>
> So long folks... Good night and good luck (as someone might have
> said...)
>
> Guy
>
Roger Eichhorn
eichhorn@xxxxxx
