The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 9 | Chapters 1 to 12 | Who directed the killing?
Chapter 5: Mario Scaramella, Chechen groups,
Alexander Talik
9.26 There were a number of reasons why it was thought at one stage that Mr Scaramella
may have been involved in Mr Litvinenko’s death.
9.27 First, there were the simple factual points that the two men met on the day that
Mr Litvinenko fell ill, and that the itsu restaurant where the meeting took place was
found to be contaminated. I am satisfied that the timing of this meeting was a pure
coincidence, and that there was nothing sinister about it. It was no coincidence
that they went to the itsu restaurant on Piccadilly – I have heard that it was one of
Mr Litvinenko’s favourite places. However, as I have explained (see paragraph 6.292
above), the contamination that was found there was centred on a table different to
that at which Mr Litvinenko and Mr Scaramella sat on 1 November 2006.
9.28 Second, initial tests indicated that Mr Scaramella was himself heavily contaminated
with polonium 210. As Dr Harrison explained in evidence, however, the results of
these tests were unreliable. 4 Mr Scaramella was not in fact contaminated at all.
9.29 Third, in the early days of his illness Mr Litvinenko himself suggested that Mr Scaramella
may have been the person who poisoned him. I do not believe, however, that
Mr Litvinenko ever thought this to have been true. As I have explained above, his
early suggestion that Mr Scaramella may have poisoned him was in part the result of
a desire not to admit to friends that he had allowed Mr Lugovoy to get close to him,
and, in part, one element in a deliberate scheme to try and lure Mr Lugovoy back to
the UK.
9.30 Mr Scaramella clearly regarded Mr Litvinenko as a friend. He had no motive to kill
him. Giving evidence to the Inquiry, DI Mascall stated that the police had no evidence
to suggest that Mr Scaramella was involved in Mr Litvinenko’s death. 5
9.31 The limit of the allegations made against Mr Scaramella was that it was he who had
poisoned Mr Litvinenko on 1 November 2006. For the reasons set out above, I am
quite satisfied that Mr Scaramella had no responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death. I
am, of course, fortified in this conclusion by the finding that I have already made that
it was Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun who poisoned Mr Litvinenko.
9.32 The List of Issues was drawn up at an early stage of the inquest proceedings, and
adopted with only a few changes for the purposes of the Inquiry. As the case developed,
it became apparent that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that either
Chechen groups or Mr Talik had been involved in Mr Litvinenko’s death.
4
Harrison 19/67-73
5
Mascall 29/79-82
213