The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Mr Patrushev, who was at that time the head of the FSB, could not single-handedly
order Mr Kiriyenkio, who was the head of atomic energy, to give him polonium just
like that. He … would have needed – that’s probably a question to an expert, but
that’s my guess in any case.
So that’s number two.
Number three is that nobody in the Russian hierarchy would initiate such an
operation without covering his back, as Mr Shvets said … not only for general
reasons, but for specific reasons that everybody knows in Russia, about a long
history of relationship with Mr Putin, Mr Berezovsky and Mr Litvinenko. It’s personal.
…
Nobody in his right mind, knowing how things run there, would authorise such an
operation when one could be sure that Mr Putin would take a very close look at it
after the fact. It’s not just an unauthorised operation, but it would be an unauthorised
operation specifically involving an issue which is very close personally to Mr Putin.
… I once said somewhere that it’s a crime of passion, not only the crime of politics,
it’s a crime of passion.
And finally, in one of the Wikileaks cable[s], the American official, by the name of
Daniel Fried, said that knowing Mr Putin’s attention to detail, we, meaning the US
administration, doubt that this could have happened without Mr Putin’s knowledge;
and to confirm that, I refer to the statement which was aired on Russian TV three
days ago, where there was a film on Russian TV featuring Putin, a long interview,
about him telling how they annex Crimea, and Putin said to the presenter: ‘the
reason why it worked so smoothly was because I personally micromanaged the
whole operation.’
The moment you delegate this to the structures, the structures screw up, essentially,
that’s what he said. So in important situations like this, only [I] can make sure that
everything is done perfectly, and this is kind of in the same vein as Daniel Fried
said, that knowing Putin’s attention to detail, he must have micromanaged it.”
9.205 In formal court proceedings, opinions such as those that were set out above from
Mr Shvets and Mr Goldfarb would not be admissible as evidence because Mr Shvets
and Mr Goldfarb are not independent expert witnesses. In this Inquiry, however, I
am not bound by the strict procedural rules that apply in court proceedings, and I do
not go so far as to reject these opinions as without value. That said, I must clearly
approach what they have said with some care. Although both men are knowledgeable
in the field of Russian history and politics, Mr Horwell was right to observe 81 that
neither could (nor, no doubt, would) claim to be impartial observers of the events
surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death.
9.206 But importantly, the evidence of Mr Shvets and Mr Goldfarb does not stand alone. I
also received evidence on these issues from Professor Service, who is an independent
expert witness.
9.207 I should make clear that Professor Service was not instructed to address in his report
the core issues relating to the attribution of responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death.
But parts of both his written evidence, and in particular his oral evidence, did touch on
81
Horwell 33/72
242