The post you are reporting:
I too like facts. The trouble is that facts have been more like 'facts' on this, and I'm not even talking about 'intelligence' (unless it's the minimal quantity shown by the cabinet operatives). First there was the site of the attack: a park bench; a pizza restaurant; a BMW; and now a door knob. Then the curious case of the 'first attenders', i.e. the passing female doctor who 'treated' Mr Skripal for 45 minutes, presumably while the paramedics had a fag and twiddled their thumbs; or DS Bailey who was apparently just passing the bench and offered assistance, until it turned out that that was highly unlikely as he's CID, so his location was conveniently moved to Mr Skripal's house. Then there was Salisbury hospital's Consultant in Emergency Medicine's letter to the Times in which he felt the need to put right the 'facts' circulating about the number of people treated at the hospital (some of which 'facts' originated with counter-terrorism officers). Then there was the judge who granted the OPCW permission to take blood samples from the Skripals, and who claimed that no family members could be contacted, while all the time they were speaking freely to the media. Then there was the 'incredible' recovery of Ms Skripal after being poisoned with, we were told, a military-grade nerve agent more deadly than VX. Then there's the fact that the words 'Boris Johnson' and 'facts' don't sit comfortably together in the same sentence. I could go on.
Now, while some of this mess may be down to media speculation (and to the media's increasingly desperate and transparent attempts to follow the correct 'line') and some of it to HMG's inept and equally transparent attempts at news management, much is simply inexplicable and has the look of a story with too many narrators juggling too many plot lines.