The surprising results of the MH17 criminal investigation

[barbos]

In the original audio circulated by ukrainians recorded right after the crash, rebels express honest surprise by the fact that civilian planes were flying over them.

Which is the most logical explanation--they figured anything up there was Ukranian military and so they simply fired at anything they could.

The problem is that most of those "rebels" were really Russian troops pretending to be rebels. Russia sent them, Russia is responsible.

That's a lie which gets repeated in western media a lot. Direct russian military involvement was very limited, much mre limited than US with Syrian "rebels".

 

[barbos]

That's what I suggested as a modification of Jayjay's alternative theory. But regarding your 2. Ukrainian military planes which were used against rebels were flying pretty low and BUK was a sure overkill for them. All these ukrainian planes which had been shot prior to incident were shot using stinger type missiles. So sending BUK would have been needless..... and dangerous.

MANPADs can only engage fairly low-flying aircraft. That doesn't mean there weren't higher flying Ukrainian aircraft they wanted to shoot at. I can't find a MANPAD with a ceiling of more than a couple of miles--and note that missiles are nowhere near as reliable at the end of their range. MANPADs can only attack aircraft landing/taking off or going low to attack. Jets normally cruise beyond the range of MANPADs.

MANPAD is enough for Su-25. But apparently they claim rebels were recorded complaining about Su-24 which can fly high and specifically asked for BUK, but I doubt that ukrainian Su-24 were effective at bombing from such altitude.

 

[Will Wiley]

There are a couple of rather serious problems worth mentioning.

One is that all we have at the moment is a prosecutor who claims to have done a good job and found the culprit. Legal history is littered with thousands and thousands of cases where over zealous or biased prosecutors claimed they knew who did but were found to be wrong. There are probably thousands of such cases around the globe each week.

The second major problem is that Ukraine one of the prime suspects was part of the investigation and provided much or most of the evidence.

Many people from around the globe are pointing out these major problems.

Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

Exclusive: The new accusation of Russian complicity in 2014 Malaysia Airlines shootdown was based on Ukrainian intelligence intercepts that were selectively interpreted while contrary information was ignored, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The key conclusion of the Dutch-led criminal inquiry implicating Russia in the 2014 shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 relied heavily on cryptic telephone intercepts that were supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence service and were given incriminating meaning not clearly supported by the words.

The investigators also seemed to ignore other intercepts that conflicted with their conclusions, including one conversation that appeared to be referring to a Ukrainian convoy, not one commanded by ethnic Russian rebels, that was closing in on the Luhansk airport, placing Ukrainian troops deep inside rebel territory

Int’l MH17 crash investigation ‘politically deficient, defective by process

Dutch journalist Joost Niemoller, the author of ‘MH-17: The Cover-up Deal’ said the investigation has not been objective and he sees many problems with the way it was carried out.

“My main criticism is that the investigation was organized by the Dutch in very close collaboration with the Ukrainian government. When you do objective research, you would say that it is possible the Ukrainians did it. And now that is not possible anymore because the Ukrainians are researching themselves,” he told RT.

“What you see here is that the main evidence presented is the tapes with all those conversations …And when I asked what the source of these tapes is, they answered that it is Ukrainian Secret Service. And when I asked are there other sources, they said “no”. I don’t believe that you could take it seriously,” said Niemoller.

Speaking about the conclusions of the investigation, which suggests Russians are responsible, he said the problem since the very beginning was that investigators thought they knew what happened and “now they are looking for evidence” for that.

“This is not a scientific way of working. You have to check out all possible scenarios and you have to keep those scenarios on the table all the time,” he told RT.

Joaquin Flores: We are not at all surprised by the results. The very problem with the JIT from its genesis was that it was put together by NATO as a result of a failure to actually create a truly independent inquiry team which was rejected at the level of the UN Security Council, once it became clear the point of any investigation was going to be to determine how it was that the Russian Federation was responsible instead of looking at the first question, ‘who did it?’ So, that was the problem from the very start. It was a geopolitically motivated investigation and it was flawed. Of course, you have a conflict of interest here, right at the start because the Netherlands is a NATO country. And NATO has been actively involved in this conflict on the side of the Ukrainian government. So, we are not at all surprised by the results and it is politically deficient, and by process it is also defective.

But people from around the world have been saying this all along.


http://www.fort-russ.com/2015/08/mh-17-investigation-is-injustice-to-all.html

- We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

- What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.

The MH17 investigation is led by the Netherlands - it is clearly procedurally biased from these general justice principles points of views. Therefore, this investigation should be nullified and replaced with a fair, unbiased and neutral one

 

[Will Wiley]

Russia's foreign and military policy since WW2 has always been to create buffers between them and any potential enemy. Since they lost control of the Eastern Block nations, this has become complicated. The grand strategy is to keep any neighboring country which can't be politically controlled, militarily impotent.

Both countries, US and russia had involvement in this proxy wars around the world. We did some of the same things in different countries.

So the two scenerios are

1) Ukraine wanted the rebels to shoot down a civilian airliner so they could gain popular support so they kept sending civilian airlines over and hope the Rebels would screw up and not identify the aircraft and shoot it down

2) Russia was helping the rebels and though giving them a BUK would help them, but somebody forgot to check what type of aircraft it was.

We know that at least some people in US intelligence believed a third option.

Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

There’s also the dog-not-barking mystery of the curious silence from the U.S. intelligence community. Although Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to know the firing location immediately after the shootdown, the U.S. government went silent after CIA analysts had time to evaluate U.S. satellite, electronic and other intelligence data.

A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that they saw the attack as a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17. But I have been unable to determine if that assessment represented a dissident or consensus view inside the U.S. intelligence community

One must remeber the situation on the ground was fluid and evolving at the time.
Poroshenko has only just taken power in an election those in the East did not vote in. Previous to that there had been a government that seized power in a violent coup.

Coup in February, Election in May, MH17 in July. Jan 2014 they had been one country. It's not like everyone just drew lines overnight and began to hate one another.

- - - Updated - - -

Russia's foreign and military policy since WW2 has always been to create buffers between them and any potential enemy. Since they lost control of the Eastern Block nations, this has become complicated. The grand strategy is to keep any neighboring country which can't be politically controlled, militarily impotent.

Both countries, US and russia had involvement in this proxy wars around the world. We did some of the same things in different countries.

So the two scenerios are

1) Ukraine wanted the rebels to shoot down a civilian airliner so they could gain popular support so they kept sending civilian airlines over and hope the Rebels would screw up and not identify the aircraft and shoot it down

2) Russia was helping the rebels and though giving them a BUK would help them, but somebody forgot to check what type of aircraft it was.

We know that at least some people in US intelligence believed a third option.

Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

There’s also the dog-not-barking mystery of the curious silence from the U.S. intelligence community. Although Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to know the firing location immediately after the shootdown, the U.S. government went silent after CIA analysts had time to evaluate U.S. satellite, electronic and other intelligence data.

A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that they saw the attack as a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17. But I have been unable to determine if that assessment represented a dissident or consensus view inside the U.S. intelligence community

One must remember the situation on the ground was fluid and evolving at the time.
Poroshenko has only just taken power in an election those in the East did not vote in. Previous to that there had been a government that seized power in a violent coup.

Coup in February, Election in May, MH17 in July. Jan 2014 they had been one country. It's not like everyone just drew lines overnight and began to hate one another.

 

[Funkytrip]

Interesting, this news is generating quite a stream of response in Russia. Almaz-Antey responded somewhat subdued, saying it's possible it was operator mistake not agreeing or disagreeing with latest report. I would interpret it as back-pedaling from their original stance that it was definitely from Ukraine controlled territory.

Russia has not much choice. The investigation and results are really comprehensive. You can only fabricate and fake so much. There is also the fact that even the investigators leave the question open whether it was intentionally or not. The consensus -also in the Netherlands- is that a bunch of rebels made a mistake with gruesome consequences.

Basically the only harmful thing for Russia is the fact they 'borrowed' their rocket launcher stuff to the rebels. But everybody knows they have done so and everybody knows Russian troops are fighting alongside the rebels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is the most logical explanation--they figured anything up there was Ukranian military and so they simply fired at anything they could.

The problem is that most of those "rebels" were really Russian troops pretending to be rebels. Russia sent them, Russia is responsible.

That's a lie which gets repeated in western media a lot. Direct russian military involvement was very limited, much mre limited than US with Syrian "rebels".

1) We don't hide the fact that we are aiding the Syrian rebels.

2) You're basically parroting Moscow's lies.

- - - Updated - - -

MANPADs can only engage fairly low-flying aircraft. That doesn't mean there weren't higher flying Ukrainian aircraft they wanted to shoot at. I can't find a MANPAD with a ceiling of more than a couple of miles--and note that missiles are nowhere near as reliable at the end of their range. MANPADs can only attack aircraft landing/taking off or going low to attack. Jets normally cruise beyond the range of MANPADs.

MANPAD is enough for Su-25. But apparently they claim rebels were recorded complaining about Su-24 which can fly high and specifically asked for BUK, but I doubt that ukrainian Su-24 were effective at bombing from such altitude.

The thing is a MANPAD can only engage when the plane is actually attacking. Something like the BUK can engage any time the plane is in the area. The rebels do have a military use for it, they just didn't understand target identification.

 

[Jayjay]

There are a couple of rather serious problems worth mentioning.

One is that all we have at the moment is a prosecutor who claims to have done a good job and found the culprit. Legal history is littered with thousands and thousands of cases where over zealous or biased prosecutors claimed they knew who did but were found to be wrong. There are probably thousands of such cases around the globe each week.

Legal history is also littered with just as many, if not more, cases where the prosecutors are right and their "zelousness" helped justice be done. To say that sometime somewhere a prosecutors may have been wrong is a non-argument in any particular case. Besides, the job of the prosecutors is to prosecute. If their case is not sound, the defense will pounce on it.

The second major problem is that Ukraine one of the prime suspects was part of the investigation and provided much or most of the evidence.

Many people from around the globe are pointing out these major problems.

Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

Robert Parry seems to be grasping at straws. But if you read his article, you'll notice that his heart isn't in it anymore, maybe the cognitive dissonance of trying to pursue a dead end is showing. He points out that the JIT trusts Ukrainian sources becasue they checked them for consistency, and that the Ukrainian convoy conversation he refers to doesn't refer to the BUK, but a possible attack on the Luhansk airport. Plus, the fact that this conversation was part of the investigation should prove that the investigators did indeed pursue also the possibility of Ukrainian involvement.

Nothing in Parry's article poses a "serious problem" to the investigation, just rehashing the same old FUD that Russian propagandists have been feeding him since the beginning.

Int’l MH17 crash investigation ‘politically deficient, defective by process

Dutch journalist Joost Niemoller, the author of ‘MH-17: The Cover-up Deal’ said the investigation has not been objective and he sees many problems with the way it was carried out.

“My main criticism is that the investigation was organized by the Dutch in very close collaboration with the Ukrainian government. When you do objective research, you would say that it is possible the Ukrainians did it. And now that is not possible anymore because the Ukrainians are researching themselves,” he told RT.

“What you see here is that the main evidence presented is the tapes with all those conversations …And when I asked what the source of these tapes is, they answered that it is Ukrainian Secret Service. And when I asked are there other sources, they said “no”. I don’t believe that you could take it seriously,” said Niemoller.

Speaking about the conclusions of the investigation, which suggests Russians are responsible, he said the problem since the very beginning was that investigators thought they knew what happened and “now they are looking for evidence” for that.

“This is not a scientific way of working. You have to check out all possible scenarios and you have to keep those scenarios on the table all the time,” he told RT.

Joaquin Flores: We are not at all surprised by the results. The very problem with the JIT from its genesis was that it was put together by NATO as a result of a failure to actually create a truly independent inquiry team which was rejected at the level of the UN Security Council, once it became clear the point of any investigation was going to be to determine how it was that the Russian Federation was responsible instead of looking at the first question, ‘who did it?’ So, that was the problem from the very start. It was a geopolitically motivated investigation and it was flawed. Of course, you have a conflict of interest here, right at the start because the Netherlands is a NATO country. And NATO has been actively involved in this conflict on the side of the Ukrainian government. So, we are not at all surprised by the results and it is politically deficient, and by process it is also defective.

What else would you expect from RT?

Point one, the source of the interecepts was indeed Ukrainian intelligence, but they provided about 150 000 of them, along with info on cell towers and other technical details that would be hard to counterfeit on that scale. If there are forgeries hidden among them, they would stand out like a sore thumb. The examples shown in the presentation was just the tip of the ice berg.

Point two, Netherlands beign a NATO country is just a fallacy of poisoning the well. The investigation is not influenced by NATO command, it's conducted by civilian authorities. Besides, Malaysia is not a NATO country, and neither are Ukraine and Australia. The reason why Netherlands is leading the investigation is because most of the victims were from Netherlands and they have the greatest motivation to find the truth.

But people from around the world have been saying this all along.


http://www.fort-russ.com/2015/08/mh-17-investigation-is-injustice-to-all.html

- We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

- What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.

The MH17 investigation is led by the Netherlands - it is clearly procedurally biased from these general justice principles points of views. Therefore, this investigation should be nullified and replaced with a fair, unbiased and neutral one

Peter Iiskola is a paid Russian propaganda shill. Repeating the same old nonsense like a broken record doesn't make it any more true. As for international aviation law, the investigation of any plane crashes is the responsibility of the country in whose airspace the incident happens. In this case it's Ukraine, whether you like it or not. In fact it would have been perfectly legal for Ukraine to insist carrying out the investigation alone without any involvement from other countries.

I notice you didn't bring up any new facts or even try to refute the findings. Just the same old conspiracy theories.

 

[Will Wiley]

Peter Iiskola is a paid Russian propaganda shill. Repeating the same old nonsense like a broken record

Nonsense? So you think a suspect should be able to investigate his own case? Interesting.

 

[Jayjay]

Peter Iiskola is a paid Russian propaganda shill. Repeating the same old nonsense like a broken record

Nonsense? So you think a suspect should be able to investigate his own case? Interesting.

This is why it is good that it's Netherlands who is leading the investigation. You can't avoid the fact that the incident happened in Ukrainian airspace and there is really no other way to get certain evidence than by cooperation with the Ukrainian officials. Besides there has not been any hard evidence so far that would implicate Ukraine anyway.

On the other hand, Russia has also been involved in the investigation, providing certain details of the BUK missile capabilities and such. Do you think the data provided by Russia should be summarily rejected just because they are a suspect (and far more likely as such than Ukraine)? Of course not. The investigative team accepts whatever evidence Russia provides and judges it by its own merits.

 

[barbos]

That's a lie which gets repeated in western media a lot. Direct russian military involvement was very limited, much mre limited than US with Syrian "rebels".

1) We don't hide the fact that we are aiding the Syrian rebels.

You don't hide it anymore.

2) You're basically parroting Moscow's lies.

no, I don't do that. They say they have nothing to do with anything. I say they have little to do.

 

[barbos]

Point one, the source of the interecepts was indeed Ukrainian intelligence, but they provided about 150 000 of them, along with info on cell towers and other technical details that would be hard to counterfeit on that scale. If there are forgeries hidden among them, they would stand out like a sore thumb. The examples shown in the presentation was just the tip of the ice berg

Then this and the fact that it took 2 years makes this "evidence" pretty much trash.
Even if we assume it's not forgery but result of sifting through 150,000 of phone conversations then context is completely lost. Few guys talking about some "car" which could be anything, some random contraband for example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) We don't hide the fact that we are aiding the Syrian rebels.

You don't hide it anymore.

2) You're basically parroting Moscow's lies.

no, I don't do that. They say they have nothing to do with anything. I say they have little to do.

RT is a Russian mouthpiece.

 

[barbos]

You don't hide it anymore.

2) You're basically parroting Moscow's lies.

no, I don't do that. They say they have nothing to do with anything. I say they have little to do.

RT is a Russian mouthpiece.

And?

 

[Jayjay]

Point one, the source of the interecepts was indeed Ukrainian intelligence, but they provided about 150 000 of them, along with info on cell towers and other technical details that would be hard to counterfeit on that scale. If there are forgeries hidden among them, they would stand out like a sore thumb. The examples shown in the presentation was just the tip of the ice berg

Then this and the fact that it took 2 years makes this "evidence" pretty much trash.

It did not take 2 years. Some of the intercepts were published in March 2015 when JIT was looking for more witnesses, so they must have had the records at least since then, most likely already shortly after the JIT was formed.

Even if we assume it's not forgery but result of sifting through 150,000 of phone conversations then context is completely lost. Few guys talking about some "car" which could be anything, some random contraband for example.

Could be. Details are not public so there is no point arguing over that, that's up to the defense lawyers.

 

[Will Wiley]

Nonsense? So you think a suspect should be able to investigate his own case? Interesting.

This is why it is good that it's Netherlands who is leading the investigation. You can't avoid the fact that the incident happened in Ukrainian airspace and there is really no other way to get certain evidence than by cooperation with the Ukrainian officials.

Sigh...Ukraine is part of the investigating team with power to veto information.

On the other hand, Russia has also been involved in the investigation,

Sigh.... Russia is not part of the team

 

[Jayjay]

This is why it is good that it's Netherlands who is leading the investigation. You can't avoid the fact that the incident happened in Ukrainian airspace and there is really no other way to get certain evidence than by cooperation with the Ukrainian officials.

Sigh...Ukraine is part of the investigating team with power to veto information.

They have no such power. That's just one of the conspiracy theories that is being circulated in an attempt to discredit the investigation. The DSB report shows, that none of Ukraine's requests to change the report were accepted, for example.

On the other hand, Russia has also been involved in the investigation,

Sigh.... Russia is not part of the team

Russia provides information and evidence to JIT. So does Ukraine. Only difference in being "part of the team" is that Ukraine gets inside info what's going on, but they can't change the minds of Dutch investigators or veto anything any more than Russia can.

 

[barbos]

Russia provides information and evidence to JIT. So does Ukraine. Only difference in being "part of the team" is that Ukraine gets inside info what's going on, but they can't change the minds of Dutch investigators or veto anything any more than Russia can.

We have been over this. Dutch demonstratively ignore and even distort data from russians. If I was in dutch place I would treat Ukraine and Russia with equal suspicion.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia provides information and evidence to JIT. So does Ukraine. Only difference in being "part of the team" is that Ukraine gets inside info what's going on, but they can't change the minds of Dutch investigators or veto anything any more than Russia can.

We have been over this. Dutch demonstratively ignore and even distort data from russians. If I was in dutch place I would treat Ukraine and Russia with equal suspicion.

How do you know they don't? Maybe it just happens that the data they got from Ukraine passed the scrutiny, while the data from Russia did not.

 

[barbos]

We have been over this. Dutch demonstratively ignore and even distort data from russians. If I was in dutch place I would treat Ukraine and Russia with equal suspicion.

How do you know they don't? Maybe it just happens that the data they got from Ukraine passed the scrutiny, while the data from Russia did not.

What kind of scrutiny original phone intercept ukrainians manipulated had?
And it's not just scrutiny, it's the fact that dutch commission intentionally distort what russians are saying.

 

[Will Wiley]

Sigh...Ukraine is part of the investigating team with power to veto information.

They have no such power. That's just one of the conspiracy theories that is being circulated in an attempt to discredit the investigation. The DSB report shows, that none of Ukraine's requests to change the report were accepted, for example.

Jay Jay. We have been over this in previous discussions but you seem to have forgotten.
https://sandervenema.ch/2014/12/ukrainian-veto-mh17-report-will-not-reveal-truth/

To even get in the report there had to first be consensus.

On the other hand, Russia has also been involved in the investigation,

Sigh.... Russia is not part of the team

Russia provides information and evidence to JIT. So does Ukraine. Only difference in being "part of the team" is that Ukraine gets inside info what's going on, but they can't change the minds of Dutch investigators or veto anything any more than Russia can.

Wrong. See the letter about the secret agreement (linked to above) where they all had to agree before anything went in. And you still are digging your heels in about a well known principle of law. The more you dig your heels in the clearer it is you don't want to see. Regardless of who did it the investigation is corrupted.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/361088-mh17-jit-investigation-ukraine/

James O'Neill, Australian barrister and international lawyer commented on the issue:“It is a fundamental principle of any kind of criminal investigation that it is done independently of the people who may be said to be involved. And we have had here right at the outset the involvement the Ukrainian police and the security services when Ukraine is clearly one of the prime suspects for being responsible for shooting down the plane.”

“The Dutch-led investigation gave Ukraine – one of the prime suspects – the right to veto anything they did not like in the report. This has not been addressed by the Dutch authorities. One cannot have any confidence in these kinds of secret agreements that were entered into in 2014 and which have been carefully not reported by the Western media ever since.”