The public will be told as much as they need to know when it's a matter of national security and / or espionage. Some may be frustrated by that, but I'm accepting of it. Naturally curious, but accepting. It only causes me any angst when researching a specific line of genealogy and hitting a banner that says 'this document has been officially removed'.

Happens all the time. The onus falls upon you to prove that you weren't driving the car at time the speed camera took the photo which clearly shows your car number plate.

No, that's evidence. A strong suspicion would mean that they are not sure if you were speeding and that is wasn't you.

Or would Assad now have to prove that it wasn't him? It is not really in line with the principle that you are innocent unless the opposite has been proven.

Russian foreign minister Lavrov says that BZ was used in the attack, and Russia never had BZ.

He's lying. The Russian military used BZ in the Moscow theatre hostage fiasco in 2002. Read about it here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rdnortontaylor

So, even if BZ was used against the Skripals (and so far we only have Lavrov's word for that) it proves nothing.

May I refer you to this handy list Diversion 5.

Anyway the police often obtain convictions on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

OK, so where are you trying to go with this? It seems nowhere fast! First of all the article you linked to basically PROVES what Lavrov stated. The article states:
The gas has never been used before, Prof Rose said, except perhaps in secret, or in a US propaganda film in the 1970s, by the US Department of Defence. "It was stockpiled and never used in the west." Prof Rose said he had experimented with the gas - which originally comes as a white powder mixed with a propellant, in a laboratory, but never on humans. He was not aware if the Soviet Union had obtained the gas. (LOL...REALLY???) (This statement basically means that "Russia DIDN'T have the gas") He also pointed out that because of a loophole these nerve agents are not covered by the international chemical weapons convention. The US has said they have the right to use them.
For all intents and purposes it appears that what this article states is very much in line with what Lavrov stated and that the US or UK used BZ on the Skirpols. Your statement that "Lavrov lied" is farcical at best.

Now, via my research MANY sources state: "The secret weapon is a gas, a sleep agent, and not a nerve gas as initially reported by the media and assumed by the world. It is a derivative of Fentenyl, an anesthetic gas. A double edged sword, it enables an impossible rescue to succeed, but is responsible for the vast amount of innocent fatalities." (This is referring to the 2002 hostage situation) The only answer was a sleep agent, a knock-out gas powerful enough to immediately paralyze and render unconscious the individuals exposed.

“The Soviets have been very secretive about exactly what was used and how it was deployed. The capability of putting everyone safely to sleep in this situation would have clearly been advantageous in resolving the hostage situation. We think they aerosolized a fentenyl derivative that was deployed in the theater. Fentenyl is a very potent narcotic. It is 100 times more potent than morphine. It has a very narrow therapeutic index, i.e., very minor changes in the dose absorbed by the individual can dramatically magnify its effects."

"“Many of the hostages sustained a res-piratory arrest which is common in a narcotic overdose. Nalaxone is a drug that reverses the effects of narcotics and could have reversed the effects of the narcotic used in Moscow if it had been given quickly to the unconscious hostages. I think we can reasonably presume the end state that the commander sought was rescuing the hostages without the terrorists detonating the bombs. Had auto injectors of naloxone (similar to 2-PAM and atropine) been available some of the hostages may have had the effects of the narcotic reversed sufficiently. They may have survived. Consider how many hostages were saved that probably would have died in the detonation of the homicide bombers. It is doubtful that all of them could have been saved under the best of circumstances.”

"DOCTORS who are treating two German survivors of the Moscow theatre siege believe that they may have identified the gas used by Russian special forces. After examining an 18-year-old woman student and a 43-year-old businessman who were knocked out by the powerful drug, experts at a clinic in Munich believe that a narcotic called fentanyl could have killed the 115 hostages.
The drug is often found in powerful pain-killing body patches used by cancer sufferers. It is also sought by heroin addicts as it is an opiate similar to morphine and is very strong in its pure state. Experts at the Pentagon said yesterday that they also strongly suspected that an opium-based drug had been used, but would not say if American doctors had tested any of the survivors. Fentanyl was first synthesised in Belgium in the late 1950s and has been used in clinical practice since the 1960s. It is an exceptionally potent analgesic for use in heart surgery."

"In October 2002, the Russian military used a mysterious gas to incapacitate Chechen rebels at a Moscow theater. Despite increased interest in the potential use of lethal chemical weapons in recent years, the medical community has paid little attention to the development of incapacitating, calmative, and less than lethal technologies. In this analysis, we review the events surrounding the use of a calmative gas during the Russian military action and discuss what is currently known about fentanyl derivatives, their aerosolization, and the rationale for their use as incapacitating agents. Collectively, the available evidence strongly suggests that a combination of a potent aerosolized fentanyl derivative, such as carfentanil, and an inhalational anesthetic, such as halothane, was used. The paper also assesses potential errors leading to the loss of a substantial number of hostages. Several lessons can be learned from this surprising and novel use of an incapacitating gas."

Here are links to stories basically verifying the same thing:
Science Direct
SemanticScholar

Scinapse
NCBI

"The opioid hypothesis was supported by the fact that naloxone was able to save those who received the same drug that’s typically used in opioid-related emergencies. Later, the Russian health minister tried to assure the public that the mixture used during the military intervention was not lethal. They admitted that the aerosol included an opioid, specifically a fentanyl-derivative (likely carfentanil).
What else was in the opioid mixture? German chemists found it contained halothane, an anaesthetic, but that wasn’t the fatal ingredient. According to a report of three medical toxicologists from the Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, the problem was rooted in the Russians’ underestimation of carfentanil’s potency. They had extrapolated rat models that did not apply to humans. In addition, the Russians didn’t take into account that a ventilation system will not evenly distribute an aerosol." UVAChemistry

Now, I'm going to suffice it to say that Lavrov is "on the money." And unless Switzerland comes right out and calls Lavrov "a dam liar" concerning Russia's BZ information, which the OPCW "conveniently" left out of their report...there's no need to discuss the horrific Russian 2002 incident equating it with what's happening today! I'm done with it and won't comment on it again! If you still have issues take it up with The Guardian (who is known for having a liberal/left leaning slant) Anyway, Take Care...!

@ ProsperityJoy

So you claim the links supporting BZ gas are wrong and the links you quote are correct.

Can you explain why? I assume not

That the gas had never been used before the Moscow attack.

Not, as your blatant misquote purports to show, that it has never been used by the Russians at all.

Shameful behaviour.

The Russian authorities refused to say what gas was used in the Moscow theater siege. But some of the Russian media reported that it was Kolokol (not a BZ agent).

You could go with that! You believe the Russian media, don't you? So they used Kolokol and, according to the Guardian article, applied a BZ antidote. Makes perfect sense.

I think its clear from Prosperity Joys post, that nobody would want to be in a hostage rescue situation in Russia. Lest we all get opiated to death, which wouldn't be a bad way to go I spose.

Prosperity Joy, are you a Krembot?

Perhaps an insomniac, at least, as a few of their posts seem to have been posted between 1 and 2 in the morning.

Surely you know Russia is in another time zone

hmmmm...defenestration when no poison at hand?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43781351

Fun fact. On another forum, where I happen to moderate, an established poster started a thread titled something like "post the latest anti-Russian propaganda here".

Turned out his account had been hacked and taken over at least 6 months ago.

@ Prosperity Joy
"unless Switzerland comes right out and calls Lavrov "a dam liar" concerning Russia's BZ information"

This will make you happy!
Source

You're really trying hard aren't you??....I'm sure you waited with bated-breath to read my reply. Have nothing better to do hey? Anyway...of course, this article is bullsh*t. What else do you expect a mouthpiece for the lying Brits to say..."Yes, OPCW did leave out vital information about the BZ toxin?" The article is simply full of propaganda and works on the misguided, uninformed, and delusional populace who unfortunately believe every word their corrupt leaders tell them. Now, something I DO want to make clear. The article states "The Swiss delegation described Lavrov’s behaviour as incomprehensible and totally unacceptable." This is an OUTRIGHT lie...first off, it's not the way the Swiss would respond and second what "Swiss delegation?" this means nothing!.In fact, in that statement they STILL didn't say that the Swiss said that Lavrov lied..it's propaganda at its best...LOL

Second, I have evidence of Switzerland's response: Swissinfo (The comments to the article are interesting as well). (Straight from the horses mouth!!!!) "The laboratory declined to comment on Lavrov’s claims, tweeting that “as a designated Lab of the OPCW, we cannot independently comment on this”. If Lavrov was lying the Swiss would have said so in a diplomatic manner and made it clear....for sure. However, Switzerland stated "no comment"...well, you know what that means. Oh, but you probably don't as nuances seem to slip by you very easily. Switzerland certainly had nothing to lose if they had stated that what Russia said was not true! It's just like a woman asking her husband's best friend "is John cheating on me?" and he responds "no comment." If John WASN'T cheating he would happily and undoubtedly say so, but to deny John was cheating would be an outright lie putting the friend in an ambiguous situation. Switzerland played their hand well. They also have a link about the "rich history that Switzerland and Russia share."

In the article they also stated "The institute added that “everything we can publicly say is in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung article”. In the same post, they retweeted the article in which Mogl said the UK’s findings were credible and the British laboratory’s reputation is “indisputable”....OPCW is a client/customer of the Spiez Swiss laboratory. Therefore, the Swiss had to play their hand CAREFULLY. The "credible" findings is that the agent found COULD NOT be traced back to RUSSIA.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, I stick with my original statement that "the Swiss laboratory would have to come right out and call Lavrov a "dam liar." Which they HAVEN'T ...because he isn't lying and the BZ toxin was the culprit used that the US and UK have access to!! (The Skirpal's symptoms fit the effects of the BZ toxin PERFECTLY!) OPCW CONVENIENTLY left the BZ information out. They were trying to save their own arse....! It seems that you have nothing better to do than to latch on to this thread hoping to vindicate your delusion and I refuse to continue to be your source of "credible" information and participate in your shenanigans....do your own homework and use some critical thinking..as an adult, you should be able to do this!...GEEZ...Good Bye I'm un-subscribing from this thread. I have better things to do and important projects to finish..GOOD LUCK on your journey there's no hard feelings on my end....!

Oh boy, logic is not not strong on your side, is it?

Let me translate that for you: that means that they subscribe to the OPCW report published, as they are part of the organisation they do not publish independent conclusions. This is normal protocol in such organisations.

On the other hand they are not saying anything in any diplomatic manner that the OPCW report to which they contributed is wrong, so, logic?

Its Lavarov and his pathetic smoke screens that are making them provide any statement at all. Pretty much all the OPCW hierarchy is refuting his story, he's beyond ridicule...

Not saying goodbye yet, I have a feeling you'll be back...

@ Prosperity Joy

"You're really trying hard aren't you?" No, I was simply quoting from the report of the OPCW 59th Executive Council Meeting.

"I'm sure you waited with bated-breath to read my reply." Of course, I am always interested to read your mishmash of speculation and unverifiable content.

"second what "Swiss delegation"" This was the official Swiss delegation to the OPCW 59th Executive Council Meeting

"Good Bye I'm un-subscribing from this thread." Probably a good decision if your best and considered response to the official statements from the OPCW 59th Executive Council Meeting is to quote from second rate news media.

"I have better things to do and important projects to finish" Wise choice, stick to what you know

According to a Tagesanzeiger article (in German) not BZ was found but 3Q, a precursor substance for BZ.

A lab is always sent control samples along with the actual test sample in order to ascertain the lab is working properly. Apparently 3Q had been added to one such control sample. Of course the lab doesn't know which is which, it just reports its findings, as appears to have happened here.

The Guardian article also mentioned the control sample, source.

For anybody who wants more detail here is a link to the actual OPCW meeting report.

Here is also a link to the full and very clear statement by the Swiss OPCW delegation which firmly rejects Russian allegations.

Now that we know the truth - Russia did it and is trying to cover up with lies and smears - What do you suggest should be done ?