The leaked OPCW report appears to have been confirmed genuine.
The report, titled "Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Observed at Douma Incident", came to public prominence a few days ago after The Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media released their analysis of the text.
It has received virtually zero coverage in the mainstream media, of course. And that doesn't appear likely to change any time soon.
The report spells out, in unambiguous language, that the two chlorine gas canisters were likely planted, rather than dropped from a helicopter.
"In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being dropped."
This finding adds to the pile of evidence which makes it appear very likely the whole event was staged.
The only question was whether or not the document could be confirmed genuine. And now it has been.
Peter Hitchens, for a long time the only mainstream voice to express any doubts about the "official narrative" on Douma, wrote to the OPCW to ask about the leaked report.
"Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question."
Note the language. Nowhere is it disputing either the findings of the document, nor the veracity. Instead, they are "conducting an investigation" into its "unauthorised release".
That is as close to an admission as makes no difference. For now, we can safely conclude the document is real, and the findings genuine.
That means, not only that the Douma "chemical attack" was likely staged, but that the OPCW knew this and chose to cover it up.
A very distressing series of events, and one that could easily have lead to an all-out war between Syria, Russia and NATO.
We welcome the OPCW's admission that this document is genuine. However, we would suggest the question is not "How was it leaked?", but rather "Why was it suppressed in the first place?"