Re the Douma report that was posted much earlier as an example of the OPCW ignoring employee's concerns. As Bellingcat points out, it actually proves the opposite.
Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report.
The letter refers to a “redacted report” that was either not published or was heavily updated before it became the final version of the report. The issues raised in the letter appear to have either been addressed with further work and research, or changed to reflect the concerns of the employee who wrote the letter.
The fact that the redacted report stated it was “likely” the cylinders were the source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical, while the final report said it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine” is significant. It demonstrates that the OPCW in fact downgraded their confidence in their conclusions in order to include the doubts raised by the author of the letter.
Based on this analysis, it is clear that WikiLeaks, the Daily Mail, La Repubblica, and Stundin have failed to understand the context of this letter and the final Douma report.
If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner.
Wikileaks misleading people? How extraordinary, ive never seen such a thing before.
The troll effort at disinformation following the post is also fairly instructive. We have seen very similar here on this grate site.
Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 06 December 2019 - 0358 AM.