The Polonium Charade

Another psyop from an increasingly desperate West, straw-clutching at whatever pile of stinking garbage is left in the propaganda barrel. So we’re going to assume you know the story already and we’ll skip it. Short version: Paranoid tin-foil hat wearing Russian conspiracy theorist gets whacked in London, blame Putin.

We’ll just give a few of our own clarifications regarding the mis-use of certain words in the case and why it is necessary to do so in order to supress the inconvenient absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegations. Not even a deleted tweet.


adverb: probably

almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
“she would probably never see him again”

Is what google throws up when you feed it probably. The chosen example illustrating perfectly the melodramatic character of the word when used in conversation.

The way we tweeted it was:

I bet you that horse will probably win. Can I lose?“. Not as illustrative as google’s find, granted, then again we write our own material here instead of copying other people’s and plastering adverts for corporate junk all over it.

We also like our own because it appeals to our sense of logic. That horse will only need to have entered the race for us to be gaurenteed to win our bet. If it is in the race there is a definite probability of it winning. If the horse isn’t in the race? All bets are off, obviously.

Thus we have already encountered two entirely different meanings of the word. A vague melodramatic usage, “George W Bush probably masterminded the 9/11 attacks“, and a precisely calculated applied mathematical meaning: “I’ll give you odds of 100/1“.

There is also a legal meaning. In criminal law, the very context of the polonium cuppa in question, a conviction can only be obtained when the evidence is “beyond reasonable doubt“. Probably doesn’t enter into it.

In civil law it does. Civil cases set a lower standard and may be decided on “the balance of probabilities“. The keyword here being “balance“.

The Balance of Probabilities

Probabilities balance because they are a property of numbers and subject to the far more stringent and strictly enforced laws of mathematics.

For convenience we normalize probabilities to fall in the range of 0 to 1. Where a probability of 1 is equivalent to a 100% certainty. Such as, “the probability of losing all of your money if you deposit it in a commercial bank is 1“. At the other end of the scale a probility of zero means it will never happen, i.e. “the probability of the USA bringing peace and democracy anywhere, let alone the Middle East, is zero“. Both of these being logicially true statements.

In making a judgement on probabilities therefore, one must find the balance – the very symbol of justice. Probabilities always add up to one. If there’s a probability that is less than 1, i.e. absent blatant in-your-face smoking-gun obviousness of guilt public confessions guilty plea and all, then it follows that there is also a probability that the opposite is true.

The two probabilities, he did it x and he didn’t do it y, will always add up to 1. x+ y = 1.

The values of x and y, are not described by the word probably. They each represent a number between 0 and 1. What that number is, and whether or not it is of a sufficiently high value to be considered ‘beyond resonable doubt’, is decided by the jury. But to get a jury on the case, one requires evidence.


When dealing with the UK government one should always remember that evidence doesn’t mean shit to them. Actually, evidence does mean shit to them. In the sense that it’s generally somethng they need to cover up and bury. Kelly, Milosovic, al-Megrahi, Saville, Brittan, Janner. Those are just some of the recent names in the UK’s evidence-suppression Whack-A-Thon.

In the current Hot Tea scandal, for example, the probability in question is based on “opinions that would not be admissible as evidence in court“. This is just a long-winded way of saying “we don’t have any evidence“. And we all know how much opinions are worth. Everybody having one, and what not.

We don’t need no stinking evidence. We have an opinion.

In fact, the UK government says that it does have evidence but it can’t tell anybody what it is because it’s a secret. Secret evidence that it refuses to show to anybody, especially any putative judge let alone a jury. Because it establishes where the Polonium came from. Or rather, where it did not.

Polonium (Po) has a short half life and it’s manufacturing process leaves a chemical signature in the material that can uniquely identify each batch produced. Polonium is mainly manufactured in Russia and Isreal. Russia exports most of its Polonium, in spite of Obama’s juvenile “Russia don’t make nothing” grandstanding, to the USA. Where it is used in such things as the production of smoke detectors.

The UK claims to have found traces of polonium leading from The Man Who Glowed in the Dark all the way back to Putin’s doorstep. Which implies about the same as saying that they have found traces of oxygen and nitrogen in the air over Crimea that could be used to make explosives. Polonium is everywhere and it’s alpha-particle emitting nature makes it very easy to detect. Which is one of the reasons why it sells so well.

Unlike oxygen, however, Polonium comes in chemically impure batches and any two traces of the element can be compared to each other. Thus it may be proven that they came from the same batch. Or not. Beyond reasonable doubt.

So why would the UK hide such evidence if it existed? Because their traces all came from different batches.

This entry was posted in политический. Bookmark the permalink.