TV interview with Salisbury suspects was shocking and welcome, says officer

An interview on Russian television with suspects in the Salisbury poisonings was “shocking” and “welcome”, a senior police officer has said.

Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov denied being the culprits and said they were tourists who wanted to visit Salisbury Cathedral, during the interview on RT in September 2018.

Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command, was asked on Wednesday by the lead counsel to the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry if the interview “came as something of a surprise”.

Mr Murphy replied: “Surprise is probably quite an understatement.

“It was quite a shocking thing to see actually, and unexpected, but equally for various reasons quite welcome for them to go on TV like that.”

He added: “To firstly strongly indicate it was them in those photographs is helpful, because clearly it demonstrates that the photos we have of them are the same.

“So unexpected and surprising in that respect to see them do that.”

Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia and former police officer Nick Bailey were poisoned by Novichok in the Wiltshire city in March 2018.

Dawn Sturgess, 44, died on July 8 2018 after she was exposed to the nerve agent, which was left in a discarded perfume bottle in nearby Amesbury, Wiltshire.

Mr Murphy said the account Petrov and Boshirov gave of their time in the UK “was very different from the movements we actually saw” and “not at all” consistent with those of a tourist in Salisbury, with the pair spending most of their time in residential areas.

He added that the men had suggested they could not use public transport because of wintry conditions, “which of course they did, for their journey down and their return journey”.

Mr Murphy said the Nina Ricci-branded perfume box believed to contain the bottle of Novichok was “similar in size to a cigarette box”.

He said neither the box, nor the bottle or its parts were genuine items, adding that the nozzle was “extremely unusual” and designed to distance the operator from its contents.

The officer said that from the start of the investigation there had been a “publicly delivered narrative by senior members of the political system in Russia” seeking “to distance themselves from any involvement in what was happening”.

He added: “At one point even suggesting that in fact this was something that had been conducted by the UK in order to be able to suggest that it was Russia, and blame them for something that we had done ourselves as part of a bizarre intelligence operation.”

Mr Murphy said Boshirov’s real identity was believed to be Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.

He added that this was based on visa applications and financial documents, open source information from the website of a Russian military school, and images from a wedding showing a likeness between Boshirov and Chepiga.

The officer said an image of Chepiga bearing “a strong resemblance to Boshirov” was pictured on a “wall of heroes” at a military school in the town of Blagoveshchensk, in the far east of Russia.

Discussing the award, Mr Murphy said: “I understand it’s appointed by the president of Russia and is one of Russia’s highest awards for its citizens, particularly in the military.”

He added that there was evidence to suggest the school may have been local to where Boshirov grew up.

Mr Murphy said Boshirov was also believed to have been identified in photos from the wedding of the daughter of Russian military intelligence (GRU) leader Andrei Averyanov, at Lake Senezh near a military base north of Moscow in July 2017.

He told the inquiry that the seating plan of the wedding included the name “Aleksei Chepiga”, adding it was likely a “shortened name” or “nickname”.

Mr Murphy said: “Importantly, whilst the individual that appears to be Boshirov is at the wedding, the Boshirov name does not feature in the table plan.”

The officer said Boshirov and Petrov had replicated details, including account numbers and bank balances, on separate visa applications.

Mr Murphy said the suspects tried to use as much original detail as possible in applications “so they’re able to remember it”.

The officer said Petrov’s real identity was believed to be Alexander Mishkin, who worked as a doctor for the GRU.

The inquiry was shown images of passports in the name of Petrov and Mishkin which both had the same date of birth, July 13 1979, and the same place of birth, Arkhangelsk.

Discussing GRU unit 29155, of which Petrov and Boshirov are believed to be members, Mr Murphy said it was “frequently reported to have been involved in operations across the world”.

He added: “Either destabilising operations and in some cases widely reported other poisonings or attacks, or other covert information activity on behalf of the Russian government.”

Mr Murphy said reporting by the investigative group Bellingcat “helped us to understand who Chepiga really was”.

The inquiry heard that the name of third suspect Sergey Fedotov was an alias for GRU officer Denis Sergeev.

Mr Murphy said mobile phone data showed Fedotov spent “significant periods of time” in Moscow near premises used by GRU unit 29155.

The inquiry was shown a map of the three suspects’ travels in 2014 which detailed them frequently flying from Moscow to Milan and then travelling to Geneva before flying back to Russia.

The inquiry was also told that Petrov and Boshirov visited London and stayed in the City Stay Hotel, Bow, in December 2016.

In February 2017, Fedotov travelled on the Eurostar from Paris to London, while on the same day Petrov flew from Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport to Heathrow airport.

Discussing the travel, Mr Murphy said: “It is my view that this was operational travel conducted as part of their role within 29155 and as members of the GRU, both as individuals and together as a group.”

Mr Murphy said investigators had worked with the Czech authorities in relation to an investigation into explosions at ammunition factories in the Czech Republic in 2014.

The officer added that it had been a “very challenging investigation to lead” and “of a scale and complexity that I’m not sure we have seen before” even considering the Litvinenko investigation.

The inquiry continues.