Chapter 4: Was there an earlier ingestion of polonium 210?

¶8.28 I have referred above to what the scientific tests conducted on Mr Litvinenko's body can tell us about the fatal dose of polonium 210 that he received on 1 November 2006.

¶8.29 There was a further dimension to this scientific evidence. Tests conducted on

Mr Litvinenko's hair demonstrated that he had ingested polonium 210 on not one but two occasions. The fatal dose on 1 November 2006 was the second of the two occasions. The first dose was much smaller, and had been ingested by Mr Litvinenko several days earlier.

¶8.30 I have summarised the scientific evidence relating to the first dose of polonium 210 in

Part 3 of this Report at paragraphs 3.182 – 3.184. It is to be noted that the first intake was estimated to be 100 times smaller than the second, fatal, dose.

¶8.31 I am sure that Mr Litvinenko did receive an earlier, smaller, dose of polonium 210

prior to the fatal dose on 1 November 2006. The scientific evidence in this regard is compelling.

¶8.32 This gives rise to further questions. When and where did Mr Litvinenko receive the earlier dose? Was it connected to the fatal dose?

¶8.33 The scientists were clear that they were unable to provide a precise answer to

the 'when' question. They were reliant in this regard on estimating time periods by reference to Mr Litvinenko's hair growth. But they had no independent evidence as to how fast his hair grew, and the exercise was further complicated by the possibility that the rate of growth may have been affected by the first dose of polonium 210. The best that they could do, therefore, was to offer probable time brackets. The view of Dr Harrison and A1 was that the earlier intake had probably taken place between 18 October and 23 October 2006. Dr Black, who conducted his analysis on a different basis, estimated that the earlier intake had taken place between 14 and 18 October 2006.

¶8.34 This evidence, however, does not stand alone.

¶8.35 There is forensic evidence that primary contamination was found on the boardroom

table at Erinys close to where Mr Litvinenko was sitting at a meeting on 16 October, a meeting also attended by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. The forensic evidence also shows primary contamination in the room at the Best Western Hotel in which the two men had prepared for the meeting, and in which Mr Lugovoy slept that night.

¶8.36 I also heard evidence about Mr Litvinenko's physical health on that day. Marina

Litvinenko said that her husband had had a sudden and unusual episode of sickness on the night of 16 October. However, Mr Kovtun's evidence (which Marina Litvinenko disputed), was that Mr Litvinenko had told him on 16 October, shortly after the meeting at Erinys, that he had been unwell for the previous 24 hours, and that he had vomited the night before.

¶8.37 At this stage of the analysis, I will limit myself to making the following observations.

¶8.38 First, the forensic evidence is highly suggestive of a link between Mr Litvinenko's first intake of polonium 210 and the meeting at Erinys on 16 October 2006.

188

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

¶8.39 Second, although that date is at one end of the combined date ranges provided by the

scientists, the dating exercise is an uncertain one for the reasons that I have explained above. It was not my understanding that a finding that the first intake took place on 16 October would be positively inconsistent with any of the scientific evidence.

¶8.40 Third, I am disinclined to place any weight in this regard on the evidence as to

Mr Litvinenko's illness on the night of 16 October. I emphasise that this is not because I accept the evidence of Mr Kovtun (my findings on the credibility of his evidence are set out below), nor because I do not believe what Mrs Litvinenko has said. My reason for caution on this point lies in the scientific evidence. The view of Dr Harrison and others was that so called 'prodromal symptoms' i.e. diarrhoea and vomiting – were not typical symptoms of internal alpha radiation poisoning. They were cautious as to whether the similar symptoms that Mr Litvinenko had suffered after the (much larger) second dose of polonium 210 had been caused by it.3 Given this uncertainty, it is better, in my view, to leave the question of Mr Litvinenko's physical symptoms on or about 16 October entirely out of the account for these purposes.

¶8.41 In summary:

a. I am sure that Mr Litvinenko did receive a first, smaller, dose of polonium 210 some time before the fatal dose on 1 November 2006

b. The forensic evidence suggests that the earlier dose is likely to have been received at the meeting at Erinys on 16 October 2006, and a finding to this effect would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence

¶INQ016745 (page 9)

189

¶Part 8 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Who killed Alexander Litvinenko?