Last year documents were leaked from the OPCW accompanied by claims from a former OPCW employee “Alex”, that the OPCWs Douma report was “doctored”.
We've obtained correspondence which proves Alex’s claims are wrong and that no such "doctoring" took place.
bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020…
We've obtained correspondence which proves Alex’s claims are wrong and that no such "doctoring" took place.
bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020…
This correspondence is from the OPCW Director General, Fernando Arias, to Brendan Whelan (a.k.a Alex) who had raised concerns about the report.
It lays out the reasoning behind the report’s conclusions, including scientific methods that were developed after Whelan left the OPCW.
It lays out the reasoning behind the report’s conclusions, including scientific methods that were developed after Whelan left the OPCW.
The correspondence makes clear that the conclusions of the OPCW report are entirely consistent with the evidence, and that the environmental samples collected from Douma provided information consistent with the use of chlorine gas as a chemical weapon.
It also notes that both Russia and Syria privately agreed with these findings.
This is in stark contrast to their public claims, which maintain that a huge conspiracy somehow faked these attacks, apparently including samples for scientific methods that didn’t yet exist.
This is in stark contrast to their public claims, which maintain that a huge conspiracy somehow faked these attacks, apparently including samples for scientific methods that didn’t yet exist.
We have already pointed out the absurdity of such a conspiracy here. bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020…
Despite this clear explanation, Whelan decided to leak significant documents to @wikileaks and others.
We @bellingcat previously pointed out these documents were only a small part of the picture, and that important information was clearly being excluded from the leaks.
We @bellingcat previously pointed out these documents were only a small part of the picture, and that important information was clearly being excluded from the leaks.
The reply from the OPCW DG was never published: either Whelan never leaked it, or those who published these leaks, such as @wikileaks, chose not to.
In either case this decision deliberately excluded a vital part of the story that clearly demonstrates Whelan’s claims were wrong.
In either case this decision deliberately excluded a vital part of the story that clearly demonstrates Whelan’s claims were wrong.
We asked those who were involved in publishing and writing about these leaks for comment.
@aaronjmate replied "As a general rule, I do not comment that I may have or have not received, but have never written about. I have never written about the document you refer to."
@aaronjmate replied "As a general rule, I do not comment that I may have or have not received, but have never written about. I have never written about the document you refer to."
@ClarkeMicah of the Mail On Sunday (@MailOnline) did not reply to requests for comment, despite the DG's letter having been mentioned by Whelan in one of @ClarkeMicah's blogs.
And, rather unsurprisingly, @wikileaks did not reply to requests for comment either.
It was always apparent from the evidence presented that the idea of a "Douma coverup" was fundamentally flawed and relied on questionable claims.
This letter shows there was a clear attempt to obscure the truth of what happened in Douma on 7th April 2018.
The only question that remains is whether @wikileaks, @couragefound, @ClarkeMicah, @aaronjmate et al were fooled, or whether they participated in obscuring this truth.
The only question that remains is whether @wikileaks, @couragefound, @ClarkeMicah, @aaronjmate et al were fooled, or whether they participated in obscuring this truth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
