The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
8.39 Second, although that date is at one end of the combined date ranges provided by the
scientists, the dating exercise is an uncertain one for the reasons that I have explained
above. It was not my understanding that a finding that the first intake took place on
16 October would be positively inconsistent with any of the scientific evidence.
8.40 Third, I am disinclined to place any weight in this regard on the evidence as to
Mr Litvinenko’s illness on the night of 16 October. I emphasise that this is not because
I accept the evidence of Mr Kovtun (my findings on the credibility of his evidence are
set out below), nor because I do not believe what Mrs Litvinenko has said. My reason
for caution on this point lies in the scientific evidence. The view of Dr Harrison and
others was that so called ‘prodromal symptoms’ i.e. diarrhoea and vomiting – were
not typical symptoms of internal alpha radiation poisoning. They were cautious as to
whether the similar symptoms that Mr Litvinenko had suffered after the (much larger)
second dose of polonium 210 had been caused by it. 3 Given this uncertainty, it is
better, in my view, to leave the question of Mr Litvinenko’s physical symptoms on or
about 16 October entirely out of the account for these purposes.
8.41 In summary:
a. I am sure that Mr Litvinenko did receive a first, smaller, dose of polonium 210
some time before the fatal dose on 1 November 2006
b. The forensic evidence suggests that the earlier dose is likely to have been
received at the meeting at Erinys on 16 October 2006, and a finding to this effect
would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence
3
INQ016745 (page 9)
188