British Foreign Office Files & Rasputin

I too am only able to pop back to the site quickly as I'm working like fury on captions of photographs for a forthcoming book and in correcting proofs.  However, I well recall Richard telling me of a murder (or rather execution) of two drug dealers he investigated when with the Met Police.  Though both shots were fired from the same distaance, from the same gun, into the same point in the skull, one bullet did not exit, the other did.

Phil T

I am delighted that we have international agreement from our small panel of various experts that a bullet will remain in the skull after it was discharged at point-blank range - depending on numerous factors of course.    There is hope for my hypothesis.

Margarita

... So, for my opinion, and few folks who participating in this thread, would be most important - who delivered second shot ...

Sorry Vlad but I disagree. The first was just as fatal as the second. The third bullet, I believe was the most interesting and would not have changed the inevitable, but it did contribute to the cause of death.

Margarita

... So, for my opinion, and few folks who participating in this thread, would be most important - who delivered second shot ...

Sorry Vlad but I disagree. The first was just as fatal as the second. The third bullet, I believe was the most interesting and would not have changed the inevitable, but it did contribute to the cause of death.

Margarita

Margarita, I know you are disagreeing on that one, I am more talking about folks like Robert, who would probably, agree with my point of view. As I hope you've got from my prior statements, R was paralyzed from second shot, and that shot, stopped him from running on the street, and allowed to execute there evil plan, to dump him in to river (they would perfectly execute that plan, even without third shot), this is why I think - third shot was insignificant.
I can see your point of view, who actually killed him, basically who end his life. But for my opinion, every single one of them murderer.
Interesting question, for the separate thread: who is responsible for the Rasputin death?

... I can see your point of view, who actually killed him, basically who end his life. But for my opinion, every single one of them murderer.

Many contributed but in the end it was the Emperor who paid the final price.

Margarita

... I can see your point of view, who actually killed him, basically who end his life. But for my opinion, every single one of them murderer.

Many contributed but in the end it was the Emperor who paid the final price.

Margarita

Margarita,
Actually you under estimating significance of the Rasputin death - ultimately entire Russia paid the final price.
Reason for that, Yussupov was right, immediately to replace Rasputin's place, every scumbag was trying to get there, failing to realize, that Rasputin was not employed. But that created some turbulence, with a turning from pro Imperial view, to why do they need Nicholas at all.
Rasputin death, for my opinion, was like catalysis process, in Russian political system back in 1916/1917.

This thread is for the discussion of the genuine evidence about the possible intervention of the British in the murder of Rasputin. While it may appear unlikely, there are those of highly respected backgrounds who believe it may have happened.  You are free to disagree, of course, but I want this thread to remain a discussion of THIS specific point, and not about the ramifications of the murder etc etc.  You are free to examine and discuss the evidence of the possible British intervention, and I welcome it, but please, allow the evidence to be presented before dismissing it whole cloth.

thanks
FA

Robert,
Sorry for taking "possible intervention of the British in the murder of Rasputin" thread to other direction, it was partially my fault. This is why, I start other thread, with much broader discussion.

Forum Admin - I was thoroughly unconvinced of British participation in the murder of Rasputin according to the evidence proferred in Andrew Cook's very sloppily produced book.   The only reason I could see why Cook managed to find a publisher for this overworked and poorly reproduced material was purely on his introduction of a British angle to the murder.   

If, at some time in the future, more serious sources and researches can be produced in support of this assertion, I will be very interested to learn of them.   

Meanwhile, so far as I am concerned, I can only base my opinions on what has been produced to date.

tsaria

Forum Admin - I was thoroughly unconvinced of British participation in the murder of Rasputin according to the evidence proferred in Andrew Cook's very sloppily produced book.   The only reason I could see why Cook managed to find a publisher for this overworked and poorly reproduced material was purely on his introduction of a British angle to the murder.   

If, at some time in the future, more serious sources and researches can be produced in support of this assertion, I will be very interested to learn of them.   

Meanwhile, so far as I am concerned, I can only base my opinions on what has been produced to date.

tsaria

This is the same Andrew Cook who wrote the recent Prince Eddy bio, isn't it?

Yes - 'PRINCE EDDY - The King Britain Never Had'.   I haven't read it and therefore cannot comment.

tsaria

There have been complaints about the sloppiness of the Eddy bio as well. Both books had a publication date of April 2006--perhaps getting 2 full-length biographies out at the same time contributed to some of the problems.

Perhaps.   But I would put it down to lack of basic research.   Certainly, in the case of the Rasputin book, the howlers are so outrageous that, although it was Andrew Cook who perpetrated these errors in the first instance, it makes one wonder about the calibre of editor.

Again - you can see, Andrew Cook has paid more attention to finding a new 'angle' to enduring stories with a view to securing publication than to conducting thorough research of the history which can be, very easily, uncovered by careful reading of any book already published on either subject.

As Forum Admin would say - 'full stop'.

tsaria

I am afraid Tsaria my research - completely independently of Cook supports the contention that the British were involved and there is danger of accepting the proven lies of Pursihkevich and Yusupov as being the truth. 

However I want to return to an earlier part of this debate and to support Margarita's contention both the shot through the stomach and liver and the shot to the kidney were fatal in themselves unless immediate mediacl care was given - even then detah was extremely likely.  the combination of both shots, one after the other would have hastened the time to life being extinction.

Phil does correctly quote my investigation of a double drugs shooting in London, but in that case the calibre of the bullet was extremely small and the velocity significantly lower than the shot to Rasputin's forehead. It is highly improbable given the Standsmark (evidence of the point blank nature of teh shot) and the calibre of the weapon that the bullet would not have passed directly through the head.

Richard

Richard, not for a moment would I discredit your independent researches which I hope everyone would regard with open eyes.   Indeed, I take my hat off to you for probing into this mystery in search for the truth, wish you well and every success.   I eagerly anticipate reading your discoveries.   Additionally, I do not confuse your work with that of Andrew Cook.   If it was Andrew Cook's work which precipated your interest in the subject, this is all to the good.   

I entirely agree with you regarding the accounts of Rasputin's murder being embroidered - or probably deliberately misleading - left to history by Yusupov and Purishkevich.   

Before the British (as a nation), as opposed to an individual Briton, can be implicated in the murder of Rasputin, the first question I have to ask is, 'Why?'

tsaria

[which weapon was used]

However I want to return to an earlier part of this debate and to support Margarita's contention both the shot through the stomach and liver and the shot to the kidney were fatal in themselves unless immediate mediacl care was given - even then detah was extremely likely.  the combination of both shots, one after the other would have hastened the time to life being extinction.

Phil does correctly quote my investigation of a double drugs shooting in London, but in that case the calibre of the bullet was extremely small and the velocity significantly lower than the shot to Rasputin's forehead. It is highly improbable given the Standsmark (evidence of the point blank nature of teh shot) and the calibre of the weapon that the bullet would not have passed directly through the head.

Richard

Hi Richard,

We both have seen forensic evidence that indisputably proves that a bullet can remain in the head when fired at point-blank range.

We both agree that Rasputin's forehead does show a clear Standsmark.

Where we diverge is which weapon was used and whether Rasputin was able to breath a bit longer or was he already dead when he was thrown over the Bolshoi Petrovskii bridge railing.

I maintain that there is absolutely no proof that a British citizen fired that 3rd shot. There were enough local candidates lining up to perform that task without the need to implicate foreign citizens. General Voyeikov confirmed that point in his memoir.  

Margarita