Thread by @MuradGazdiev

There are two types of investigations.

The first is itended to find out and explain what went wrong.

The second type is intended solely and utterly to cover your ass.

The OPCW opted for the second. Long thread:

OPCW says whistleblower "Inspector A" wasn't part of Fact-Finding Mission, played "minor role"

They then admit:

He was head of Syria HQ
Collected samples from hospital/chemical attack site
Inventorized all info OPCW had on cylinders
Determined what OPCW needed to investigate

OPCW: "Inspector A" didn't have permission to carry out cylinder study (which found cylinders were likely placed at scene). Had "incomplete evidence".

Then, admit they they gave him authorization, and ASKED him inventorize "highly protected" cylinder evidence. So he had info

OPCW argues that his study was inaccurate because of information about the cylinders that they may or may not have learned 7 months after the study was finished (we don't know)

Which is an indirect admission that he did use relevant evidence OPCW had at the time.

This is where the OPCW stops making all sense.

After bashing "Inpector A" as sly, conniving, his study as unauthorized, inaccurate, lacking evidence, "a personal opionion"-they then say they will now take a look at it.

Meaning they didn't before - despite calling it inaccurate

There are a ton more contradictions in this "investigation", I'll get to them a little later when I have time. This is an embarrassment for the OPCW.