British Foreign Office Files & Rasputin

[vladm]

Let is not forget that Professor Pounder in his wisdom used his professional skills to determine the size of the entry wound ("about 6 mm") from just a photograph AND was somehow able to conclude, based on his measurement that the weapon that caused the damage to R's forehead was likely to be a Webley!!!!

Need more be said? 

Margarita

Margarita,
I believe he either invent, either rented from British MI - time machine   

[Belochka]

Let is not forget that Professor Pounder in his wisdom used his professional skills to determine the size of the entry wound ("about 6 mm") from just a photograph AND was somehow able to conclude, based on his measurement that the weapon that caused the damage to R's forehead was likely to be a Webley!!!!

Need more be said? 

Margarita

Margarita,
I believe he either invent, either rented from British MI - time machine   

What ever he used, as a pathologist myself I can categorically confirm that his deductions are scientifically flawed.

Margarita   

[Phil_tomaselli]

Belochka, many thanks for posting the document for me.  One day I hope to be able to do so myself and then I can display many more original documents from the period.

The document is from The Military Control Office to MI5e.  Stephen Alley was Military Control Officer and his section was responsible for issuing visas to travellers to, or via, Great Britain.  MI5e was the security service section that co-ordinated the visa requests and approved or denied them.

There are two reasons for posting this.

The first is that it is an original document (note Stephen Alley’s signature at the bottom).  This means that original documents from the Intelligence Mission are extant, as you can’t sign a telegram.  Though Vladm is undoubtedly correct that signals were passed by cyphered telegram, original documents seem also to have been sent.  Quite why this should be I don’t know, but after 15 years of studying the period there are still a lot of things I don’t know about Secret Service methodology.

Secondly it shows the quality of original documentation.  What Vladm has posted is lifted from the publisher's website and I suspect that the document has been “cleaned up” digitally by the publisher in order to look good to the average reader.

I have to admit an interest in this, as I do occasional research work for Andrew Cook, though I had no involvement in his Rasputin book.  As I understand it, while researching his book on Sidney Reilly he traced the families of Oswald Rayner, Stephen Alley and John Scale, the British intelligence officers named in his Rasputin book.  It was from the families that he obtained the documents he is using in support of his contention that the individuals were involved.  I did attend the book launch and met the families, so unless there are a troupe of highly convincing actors involved the forged document allegation falls.  I have seen copies of some of the other documents (unfortunately not the one Vladm has shown) and nothing thus far suggests to me that they are false.  The original documents have been seen by a British academic, a well-respected writer on intelligence (and no, I won’t name him as I don’t have his authority) who has told me that he too sees no reason to doubt their authenticity.

Phil Tomaselli

[Belochka]

Belochka, many thanks for posting the document for me.  One day I hope to be able to do so myself and then I can display many more original documents from the period.

You you are welcome!

I have to admit an interest in this, as I do occasional research work for Andrew Cook, though I had no involvement in his Rasputin book.  As I understand it, while researching his book on Sidney Reilly he traced the families of Oswald Rayner, Stephen Alley and John Scale, the British intelligence officers named in his Rasputin book.  It was from the families that he obtained the documents he is using in support of his contention that the individuals were involved.  I did attend the book launch and met the families, so unless there are a troupe of highly convincing actors involved the forged document allegation falls.  I have seen copies of some of the other documents (unfortunately not the one Vladm has shown) and nothing thus far suggests to me that they are false.  The original documents have been seen by a British academic, a well-respected writer on intelligence (and no, I won’t name him as I don’t have his authority) who has told me that he too sees no reason to doubt their authenticity.

Phil Tomaselli

Phil,

Have experts authenticated the documents or do your associates believe in good faith that the documents appear authentic?

Would not released intelligence documents have some kind of official government stamp or notation on them that would include date of release + a signature and similar details?

Margarita 

[Phil_tomaselli]

Margarita

I cannot say, hand on heart, that the documents have been authenticated.  I've only seen copies and I don't know exactly what my friend saw that made him express his opinion that they are genuine.

What I can say is that what I've seen (and this is not a lot) appear to fill some gaps, gaps that as far as I know, only I'm aware of.  The documents are not "released" but, as far as I'm aware, were retained by the individuals.  Presumably they are copies of material transmitted, in one way or another, either between individuals or departments.
This presumably explains the lack of stamps etc.

Collections like this do come to light occasionally, I'm trying to think of the name of an excellent book "Secrets of the Rue???" about intelligence operations in Belgium, which came out about 3 years ago, based on exactly such a collection.  That collection was, however, authenticated by MI6 themselves and a former Director wrote the foreword.

Phil T

[vladm]

Phil,
I am sorry, but with all do respect. I never seen the document, from any government without department registration number. Main reason for that, farther documentation, will not be able to reference it.
Second warning point for forgery, British documentation, memos, etc should contains FROM/TO field. Reason for that, British MI, I think large organization, even back to 1916/1917 period of time. If memo - department wide, it should contain FROM field for authorization reason.

And again, I will repeat, this is not a musketeer time, they didn't had to ride the horse, in order to deliver the message to the queen. Communication, was done by telegraph, especially just basic translation/report of the local news.

[Phil_tomaselli]

Vladm

If you look at the top of the document you posted you will see that an area is unreadable.

I suspect that this obliterates a covering reference and that this reference should begin CX.

CX means SIS communication and is almost always obscured when a document is made available through an official, or semi-official, source.  This is not from an official source.

The content of the document suggests that it may be the signal sent by Sir Samuel Hoare and referred to in his book "The Fourth Seal" as being sent immediately following the murder.  This is the document that I referred to at the beginning of the thread as being missing from the Foreign Office records.  CX messages were specifically meant to be pulled from the Foreign Office files before they were sent to archive and i can explain exactly how, and why, some were extracted and others weren't.  Just not here.

I have no doubt that the document I copied was sent telegraphically.  Military Control messages involved people who were travelling or about to travel so telegraph messages had to be used to reach the destination before they did.  I do not know how, or why, hard copies seem to have been sent also.

The CX reference, if it was there, would provide the FROM reference (ie SIS) and the TO reference might be assumed from other obscured references.  I could write an essay on this, and one day may do so, but not right now.

look back at my beginnings of this thread to see how the Foreign Office sorted and stored its documents.

It's late, I'm tired.  You are right to ask the questions as they are very sensible.

Phil Tomaselli

[vladm]

Phil,
Thank you so much for your explanation. Lets review both documents:

I had to enlarge correct document, and mark some information:


Registration under letterhead, is essential part, and never will be present on the right side of the document, unless its part of the standard stamp. Number on the right, usually related to registration for outbound correspondence (as you probably know, one department, should release memo/document, other will send).
Now, is something under "lips imprint"  , what I am seriously doubt, because if it got extracted or stolen from archive, I see no reason, why they should remove official numbers and leave letterhead for British MI.
We can not speculate, what could be under smashed dark section, because neither of us, hold the real document in our hands, and scanned quality is not allowing us to see anything under.

One more point, placing big question on entire thing, why did they put on police report, or translation to police report - MI letterhead, to increase visibility of the memo?

[ChristineM]

To return to the assertion by Cook that Rasputin was 'finished off' by a shot to the forehead fired by a British agent... There is every chance that Belochka's supposition  is accurate and that Bullet No3 was indeed the bullet which was retrieved.   

Surely the lack of an exit wound would depend on where the body was lying when the shot was fired into Rasputin's forehead.   If he had been lying on a timber floor, for example, the bullet almost certainly would have exited the rear of the skull and penetrated the timber.   If, however, he was lying on stone - would the bullet have been able to exit the skull?

tsaria

[Belochka]

Let us look first at the forensic images of his Rasputin's head.

Image rotated for easy viewing- left side

Magnified partial image only -  right side

[Belochka]

There are few documented examples in forensic literature which describe military hospitals which have accepted patients who have been admitted with trauma from a penetrating gunshot wound fired at close range into the frontal bone and where no exit wound exists. So far I have managed to find one or two examples from the Bosnian war.

Granted that such an event is rare, it would be wrong to exclude the few documented examples that are available, which have identified that a bullet can remain in the head after close range discharge from a firearm. There are, as expected many variables that would come into play to permit such a scenario, but the type of bullet would be of prime consideration - and our main one here.

The pathologist Kosorotov had identified that there was a blunt end trauma on the occipital bone. Such a specific notation would to my mind clearly indicate that there was no other pathology to be observed. 

One key point is that if we for one (very brief) moment believe that it was a British Webley with an unjacketed bullet as claimed by Pounder in Cook's book, which had entered Rasputin’s brain, then because of its intrinsic nature, one would expect that there would have been what is refered to as a “blowout”. This means that not just bone fragments but a considerable volume of brain matter should have been ejected out from all available openings as "forward spatter", with the largest volume coming out from an exit wound.

There are a few other critical considerations as to why Professor Pounder was misguided in his learned "best fit" assessment of Rasputin's head wound, but that will have to wait.

Rasputin’s head as we can see above in the images, appeared entire. Importantly, the examining pathologist had examined the brain hemispheres and not a just a soup of brain tissue, blood and bone fragments. Otherwise Kosorotov would have stated that it too was "shattered" just as he had for the right kidney and right lobe of the liver (for bullets # 1 and 2). There was no reason to hide the fact as an impartial professional witness.

What I am trying to emphasize here is there is stronger evidence - taking into account the forensic evidence that is available at the present time - that Rasputin’s head did not have an exit wound.

Margarita 

[Belochka]

Unfortunately I could not find unjacked bullets pictures, but unjacked bullets known, as been forbidden by Geneva convention, and causing extreme internal damage on impact.

Also, unjacked bullets known to disintegrate on impact with bones, that could dumped entire theory in to trash, because damage should be much more.

Hi Phil,

Vladm has kindly reminded me of the Hague Convention of 1899 (subsequently refered to as the Geneva Convention) which forbade the use of expanding, deformable bullets in wartime. As a result of that Declaration all military bullets should have had a metal jacket around the lead core in compliance to that Convention.

This fact leads to the me to ask why a British intelligence officer would be walking around Petrograd in 1916 in defiance of that Convention?

Diplomatic immunity may be one consideration, but the embarrassing revelation of the potential scenario of Rayner being caught with the smoking gun that had just discharged an unjacketed bullet would have been even more than just a simple case of diplomatic inconvenience.

Just a few thoughts to ponder ....

Margarita     

[ChristineM]

Belochka - what I am trying to reach for is this - had Rasputin's virtually moribund body been lying on a stone surface, the bullet would not have had the opportunity to exit the skull.   

Additionally, this is relevant in terms of locating the site where Rasputin's body lay at the time of the fatal shot to the forehead.   If indeed he was in the yard, as we are led to believe + the record of considerable amounts of blood (wouldn't there also have been brain material) in the snow, the gravel topped soil not have stopped the bullet exiting the skull   On the otherhand, if the body was still in the cellar - as I recall the floor of the cellar was flagstone (carpeted with an oriental rug) the bullet would have been unable to exit the skull.

In the case of JFK - the shots fired were, of course, from a high velocity rifle from a considerable, and moving distance, but the shot to the head virtually blew off the back of the president's head.   (This is a mystery to me - how could a shot from behind could possibly result in the greater damage being inflicted to the back of the head?)   In the case of Rasputin, the bullet was delivered by a revolver, but as has already been proven, from a distance probably no greater than three feet.   How, therefore, is it possible that the head of Rasputin could remain as intact as can be seen in the photographs posted by Belochka or as witnessed by the pathologist at post mortem?

The one thing of which I feel quite certain - that bullet was not delivered either from the gun or by the hand of a British secret agent.   Like Belochka, why was Cook so keen to implicate a fellow a British agent in the murder of Rasputin?  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with selling a book?   A new angle on an old, yet enduringly fascinating, story such as the murder of Gregory Rasputin, is the very stuff of a publisher's dreams.

tsaria

[Belochka]

Belochka - what I am trying to reach for is this - had Rasputin's virtually moribund body been lying on a stone surface, the bullet would not have had the opportunity to exit the skull.   

... Additionally, this is relevant in terms of locating the site where Rasputin's body lay at the time of the fatal shot to the forehead.   

...  How, therefore, is it possible that the head of Rasputin could remain as intact as can be seen in the photographs posted by Belochka or as witnessed by the pathologist at post mortem?

The one thing of which I feel quite certain - that bullet was not delivered either from the gun or by the hand of a British secret agent.   Like Belochka, why was Cook so keen to implicate a fellow a British agent in the murder of Rasputin?  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with selling a book?   A new angle on an old, yet enduringly fascinating, story such as the murder of Gregory Rasputin, is the very stuff of a publisher's dreams.

tsaria

The truth lies in the forensics and not in wild conspiracy theories that create a novel scenario based on "best fit" analysis. Such an interpretation usually leads to the answer you prefer.

Margarita

[ChristineM]

The truth can only lie in the forensics to an extent.   Forensics cannot tell us whose finger pulled the trigger, for example.   The eye-witness evidence - as discussed elsewhere - is full of contradictions and flaws.   

So far as I am aware, the queston at issue is who delivered the final, fatal shot to the forehead of Gregory Rasputin.   Judging from the photographs there was not the kind of damage inflicted on his head as one would have expected from a shot fired at such close quarters.   This is the question I am asking - and for the third time.   Is there any relevance as to whether Rasputin's comatose body was lying on stone - unyielding, or gravel on top of soil - albeit most probably frozen, but nonetheless much more likely to allow a bullet to penetrate the skull and into the ground beneath? 

If you believe it was the third bullet which was recovered at PM, Belochka, please explain why it did not exit the skull and cause more serious damage to his brain and skull?   The photographs themselves bear witness to this.

I am in total agreement with Belochka that, it is more than likely that Andrew Cook is flying a kite with the tale of the British agent being the final assassin.   But I really would like a simple answer, yes or no, as to whether the surface on which Rasputin's body was lying is relevant in any way to the fact that the fatal bullet did not exit the skull.   I will endeavour to establish this and post accordingly.

I am not at all interested in fairy stories.   I left those behind many moons ago.   I am interested, if it is at all possible at this distance in time and through the confusion of war, revolution and a closed, secretive society, to come as close to the truth behind the murder of Gregory Rasputin as possible.

tsaria

tsaria