Thread by @N_Waters89

The OPCW has released their investigation into the two leakers who have caused so much drama over the last year.

The report refers to inspectors A & B. These are Ian Henderson and (likely) Brendan Whelan respectively.

opcw.org/media-centre/n…

Henderson released an “engineering report” questioning whether the cylinders impacted the locations. Whelan claimed the interim report was manipulated.

We @bellingcat have already discussed how these claims were flawed & sometimes factually incorrect.

bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020…

@bellingcat Firstly, the OPCW make it crystal clear that Henderson was not, and never was, part of the FFM. He helped out with collecting data from the site and identifying what info was required for further studies. That was the extent of his official involvement in the investigation.

@bellingcat This makes it clear that Whelan blatantly lied about Henderson’s status in his email of complaint on 20 May 2019.

I have very little doubt that Whelan wrote this email with the intention of leaking it in support of his claims.

@bellingcat Despite being expressly told not to, Henderson decided to carry out an “engineering assessment”.

He not only lied to members of the OPCW & FFM when doing this, but also to the *professors who carried out the simulations*.

In short, Henderson went completely rogue.

@bellingcat Will have a short break while I head to the airport.

Standby for part 2 on Whelan.

@bellingcat So, despite the huge amount of fuss over the Interim report (emphasise on the word "Interim") it turns out that Whelan actually confirmed in writing that he agreed with its conclusions.

@bellingcat As we worked out, Whelan then left not only the FFM, but also the OPCW in August 2018. I cannot emphasise this point enough:

*He was not present for the vast majority of the investigation into the Douma attack*

@bellingcat Whelan also sent at least one report from the WGPS to a colleague at the OPCW.

The WGPS are a group of conspiracy theorists who are infamous for spreading false information. You can read about them here: huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-usef…

@bellingcat Meanwhile, Hitchens's claimed that the leakers "feel that the OPCW has a duty to be true to its own science, and not to be influenced by political considerations as they fear it has been".

This is quite clearly complete bollocks.

@bellingcat The report also hints at the possibility that Whelan leaked Henderson's engineering assessment. This is something I have also suspected for some time for a couple of reasons, but cannot confirm.

@bellingcat The final word goes to Mr Arias, Director General of the OPCW:

"Inspectors A and B are not whistle-blowers. They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence... their conclusions are erroneous, uninformed, and wrong."

@bellingcat P.S - If Peter Hitchens, who has been the foremost proponent of this dribble, had actually checked the claims of his sources he would have noted the glaring gaps and errors, as we did over our 5 articles examining this subject.

@bellingcat That Hitchens did not bother to check these claims is a damning indictment of his ability as a journalist, and calls into question his ability to rationally assess facts on this incredibly sensitive matter.

No paper should have published any of his work on this issue.

END.