The Litvinenko Inquiry

itsu
Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
6.101 The evidence before me was that, following the meeting with Mr Reilly, Mr Lugovoy,
Mr Kovtun and Mr Litvinenko went together to the itsu restaurant on Piccadilly.
Mr Lugovoy made a purchase on his credit card there that afternoon that was timed
at 4.22pm. 83 There was no direct evidence as to where they sat on that occasion,
but secondary contamination was found at one of the tables. Importantly, the table
at which the secondary contamination was found was not that at which (according to
the evidence of Mr Scaramella) Mr Litvinenko sat with Mr Scaramella on 1 November
2006. 84 Given the primary contamination at the Erinys boardroom, it is a reasonable
inference that the secondary contamination found at itsu was left by Mr Lugovoy,
Mr Kovtun and/or Mr Litvinenko at the time of their visit on 16 October.
The evening of 16 October
6.102 When they left itsu, the three men split up. Mr Litvinenko travelled back to his home
in Muswell Hill. The bus on which he travelled was subsequently tested and found to
be free of contamination. 85 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun remained in central London.
6.103 When she gave oral evidence, Marina Litvinenko told me about her recollection of that
evening. 86 She said that it was a “normal, very peaceful evening”. Marina Litvinenko
had prepared spicy chicken soup for dinner. Mr Litvinenko liked hot food, and he ate
the soup with some hot peppers. She said that he often added hot spices to his food.
Some time after the meal, Mr Litvinenko suddenly began to feel ill. He vomited. She
said that Mr Litvinenko continued to feel unwell for the next two days.
6.104 When interviewed by police in hospital, Mr Litvinenko had himself referred to an
incident “two or three weeks” before he went into hospital when he had vomited. He
said that at the time he had assumed it was food poisoning. 87
6.105 In the witness statement that he provided to the Inquiry dated 2 June 2015, Mr Kovtun
suggested that Mr Litvinenko’s illness had in fact pre-dated 16 October. He stated that
Mr Litvinenko had told him whilst they were at itsu on that day that: “he would not be
eating with us because he had been poisoned the previous day and had spent the
entire night vomiting so much that he had had to call a doctor.” 88 It should be noted
that Mr Kovtun said something similar to this in an interview that he gave to Der
Spiegel in late 2006. 89 On the other hand, Marina Litvinenko’s evidence – which she
emphasised in a further statement served in rebuttal of Mr Kovtun’s statement 90 –
was that Mr Litvinenko had not been ill prior to 16 October. She said that she was
certain that this episode of sickness had not taken place on Sunday 15 October, and
she was equally certain that neither she nor anyone else had called a doctor on this
occasion. There is certainly no other evidence (for example from General Practitioner
(GP) records or the account of Mr Prikazchikov) that a doctor was called at this time.
83
Mascall 9/101
84
Mascall 9/109-111
85
Mascall 9/112-113; 9/124. See paragraphs 6.21-6.24 above for discussion regarding the value of such
findings.
86
Marina Litvinenko 4/35-37
87
INQ016642 (page 4)
88
INQ021208 (page 3)
89
INQ012404
90
INQ022370
131