Chapter 5: Mario Scaramella, Chechen groups, Alexander Talik

¶9.26 There were a number of reasons why it was thought at one stage that Mr Scaramella may have been involved in Mr Litvinenko's death.

¶9.27 First, there were the simple factual points that the two men met on the day that Mr Litvinenko fell ill, and that the itsu restaurant where the meeting took place was found to be contaminated. I am satisfied that the timing of this meeting was a pure coincidence, and that there was nothing sinister about it. It was no coincidence that they went to the itsu restaurant on Piccadilly – I have heard that it was one of Mr Litvinenko's favourite places. However, as I have explained (see paragraph 6.292 above), the contamination that was found there was centred on a table different to that at which Mr Litvinenko and Mr Scaramella sat on 1 November 2006.

¶9.28 Second, initial tests indicated that Mr Scaramella was himself heavily contaminated with polonium 210. As Dr Harrison explained in evidence, however, the results of these tests were unreliable.⁴⁴ Harrison 19/67-73 Mr Scaramella was not in fact contaminated at all.

¶9.29 Third, in the early days of his illness Mr Litvinenko himself suggested that Mr Scaramella may have been the person who poisoned him. I do not believe, however, that Mr Litvinenko ever thought this to have been true. As I have explained above, his early suggestion that Mr Scaramella may have poisoned him was in part the result of a desire not to admit to friends that he had allowed Mr Lugovoy to get close to him, and, in part, one element in a deliberate scheme to try and lure Mr Lugovoy back to the UK.

¶9.30 Mr Scaramella clearly regarded Mr Litvinenko as a friend. He had no motive to kill him. Giving evidence to the Inquiry, DI Mascall stated that the police had no evidence to suggest that Mr Scaramella was involved in Mr Litvinenko's death.⁵⁵ Mascall 29/79-82

¶9.31 The limit of the allegations made against Mr Scaramella was that it was he who had poisoned Mr Litvinenko on 1 November 2006. For the reasons set out above, I am quite satisfied that Mr Scaramella had no responsibility for Mr Litvinenko's death. I am, of course, fortified in this conclusion by the finding that I have already made that it was Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun who poisoned Mr Litvinenko.

¶9.32 The List of Issues was drawn up at an early stage of the inquest proceedings, and adopted with only a few changes for the purposes of the Inquiry. As the case developed, it became apparent that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that either Chechen groups or Mr Talik had been involved in Mr Litvinenko's death.

214