Problem:
Identify key assumptions underlying the consensus view. Could any of these be unsubstantiated? Do some assumptions need caveats? If some are not valid, how much could this affect the analysis? using this info and what is present in the paper According to Conesus, the Russian government is suspected of carrying out the poisonings because of prior incidents involving Russian state enemies. To arrive at this conclusion, the facts of previous instances were used as a foundation. Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB officer who died after eating a rare radioactive isotope in London in November 2006, sparked comparisons to her death. The only evidence presented in this analysis was that this had happened previously. Several facts are necessary to assess if this is a Russian assault or an inside effort with the primary goal of framing the Russians.' Indirectly, this was a result of the investigation.