The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 8 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Who killed Alexander Litvinenko?
his alleged involvement in Mr Litvinenko’s death, may have made him an unsuitable
subject for a test of this type and/or on this topic. He said that Mr Lugovoy’s mind and
body may have become ‘habituated’ to denying these allegations, so that the nervous
reaction to false denials that the test measures would not have been produced even
if he was lying.
8.144 Finally, Professor Bull gave detailed evidence regarding the risk of a polygraph test
being undermined by the subject of the test using countermeasures. He said that
it has been recognised that people can be trained to defeat polygraph tests. In my
view, this risk alone is sufficient to render this particular test valueless. Mr Lugovoy
accepted that he was familiar with polygraph tests through his security work. I also
bear in mind in this context his previous lengthy service in the Committee for State
Security (KGB). Moreover, in the course of the test Mr Lugovoy was seen to move,
which is a possible sign of countermeasures. He was told to keep still (as he had been
instructed at the outset), but continued to move.
8.145 In my judgement, there is a very serious risk that Mr Lugovoy had been trained to
defeat this polygraph test, and that he used countermeasures to do so.
8.146 In summary, I have no doubt that I should place no weight at all on the outcome of this
test – in part because of shortcomings in the way that the test was conducted, in part
because of Mr Lugovoy’s unsuitability as a subject of the test, and in part because of
the risk that Mr Lugovoy took deliberate steps to defeat the test.
8.147 Mr Emmerson did suggest at one stage that I might rely on one part of the test which
suggested that Mr Lugovoy had lied in response to one of the relevant questions. In
the end, rightly, he did not pursue this suggestion. I have concluded that the whole
process was flawed, and it would therefore be wrong for me to rely on any part of it.
Contamination of Lugovoy and Kovtun and their families
8.148 It is a striking feature of the Pine Bar narrative that, as Mr Litvinenko was leaving,
Mr Lugovoy invited him to shake hands with his young son, who had just arrived back
at the hotel. Mr Lugovoy has referred to this incident as evidence of his innocence –
surely, he has said, he would not risk his own son being contaminated?
8.149 The point goes further. Mr Lugovoy’s wife and son slept in a contaminated bedroom at
the Millennium Hotel, and sat in contaminated seats on the aircraft. Similarly, Marina
Wall’s flat in Hamburg was contaminated, leading her to say, “I really can’t imagine
that he [i.e. Mr Kovtun] would put my children in danger.” 21
8.150 I am prepared to assume that neither Mr Lugovoy nor Mr Kovtun would have wished
to harm their loved ones. But I do not consider that this assumption is inconsistent
with my conclusion that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun poisoned Mr Litvinenko with
polonium 210.
8.151 In an article in the Sunday Times, Mr Franchetti quoted a Russian source named
Mr Kondaurov, who stated: 22
“Let’s for the sake of argument, assume that I had been in charge of such an
operation… and let’s assume Lugovoy was involved. I would have told him as
21
Marina Wall 32/66-67
22
Mascall 22/127
205