The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
These are matters that would obviously have been explored with Mr Kovtun had he
given oral evidence.
6.106 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun spent the evening having dinner with Dr Shadrin at the
Pescatori restaurant in Dover Street. Mr Lugovoy’s credit card was used to pay the
bill at the restaurant at 10.39pm that evening. The reservation book at the restaurant
shows that the three men sat at table 17. 91
6.107 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun then went on to a bar near the Best Western Hotel named
Dar Marrakesh, where a bill was paid with the same credit card at 11.05pm. The bill
was for £9.00, which appeared to reflect the purchase of a shisha pipe.
6.108 The Pescatori restaurant and Dar Marrakesh were both found to have secondary
contamination. At the Pescatori, the table with the highest level of contamination was
table 17. 92 At Dar Marrakesh, one of the shisha pipes was found to be contaminated. 93
6.109 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun spent the night at the Best Western Hotel. As I have
already said, Mr Lugovoy had room 107. Mr Kovtun’s room, which had not been
available earlier, was room 308. As we shall see, this was in fact the only night that
the two men spent at the Best Western Hotel.
6.110 Both rooms were subsequently tested and were found to contain extensive
contamination. 94 Room 107 was more heavily contaminated than room 308. A1 gave
her opinion as to the interpretation of the readings taken in these two rooms. 95 She
said that the most significant result of this testing was the discovery of what she judged
to be primary contamination in the u-bend of the sink in the bathroom of room 107.
She explained that the scientists had opened the u-bend and found the contamination
on detritus such as hair, etc. caught in the u-bend. The testing of the room had taken
place on 22 December – more than two months after Mr Lugovoy had stayed in it. A1
said that the repeated use of the sink that would have taken place during that period
explained the fact that relatively low readings were taken in the area of the sink itself –
from where the polonium would have been washed away – in contrast to the sediment
in the u-bend, where the polonium would have been caught. She added that even in
the u-bend the initial levels of contamination may have been considerably higher. In
a nutshell, A1’s view was that the contamination in the u-bend was consistent with
polonium being poured down the sink plughole.
6.111 There are three observations that I would make about these findings at this stage:
a. First, and perhaps obviously, the coincidence of primary contamination being
found both on the boardroom table at the Erinys offices where Mr Lugovoy sat
at a meeting on 16 October and also in the bathroom of the hotel room that he
occupied that day is very striking
b. Second, although there is no direct evidence as to precisely how the polonium
came to be in the u-bend in room 107, the inference can be drawn that it was
poured down the sink by Mr Lugovoy and/or Mr Kovtun either in the act of
preparing a solution to be used in an attempt to poison Mr Litvinenko at the
Erinys meeting, or in disposing of the remainder of the solution later in the day. I
91
Mascall 17/79-80
92
Mascall 17/80-81
93
Mascall 9/115-116; 11/124-125
94
Mascall 9/67-78
95
A1 20/16-26; 20/97-98
132