The quest for justice on MH17: police work case without crime scene or court
This is a link to a very intersting article by the Sydney Morning Herald. It is about the Australian investigation lead by the JIT on MH17.
Some interesting statements like this one
AFP (Australian Federal Police) Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, now in his second rotation as head of the Australian MH17 team in The Hague, was asked about progress, he said: “We’re not at the stage of being able to say enough in terms of evidence and credible witnesses.”
Interviewed in a conference room at the Australian Embassy in The Hague, he estimated that the JIT would need as much as another year to complete its work.
„By contrast, the MH17 crash site was 45 square kilometres, which only a handful of investigators could examine and for no more than 18 hours, during which they focused on recovering the remains of the dead.“
One sentence with three lies !
„… only a handful of investigators could examine …“
In my picture collection I see more then 50 different investigators at the scene.
„… for no more than 18 hours…“
The malaysians were the first foreign investigators at the crash site. They alone were more than 18 hours there.
„… they focused on recovering the remains of the dead.“
I didn´t see a single investigator focusing on the dead. The locals recovered them. The investigators were interested in the wreckage only.
The investigation is opaque as is typical of criminal investigations. The tone of the public statements has shifted from optimism to a more realistic outlook.
Fred Westerbeke expressed confidence in late June that the investigation will conclude successfully. This could have been how he really felt, or it could have been his contribution to effort to establish a tribunal backed by the UNSC.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKCN0PA1GE20150630 (6/30/15)
The article lied that 14 countries voted in favor of a tribunal. 11 countries voted in favor. China, Angola and Venezuela abstained. Russia voted against.
Remarkably the prosecutors kept saying that while a Buk is the most likely scenario they can’t rule out an air-to-air attack. One would think that if you can rule out the presence of fighters in the vicinity then you can also rule out an air to air attack. But, how do you rule out the possibility of fighters without the evidence that remains withheld by Ukraine, US, Russia and NATO countries? One of the keys to a successful prosecution is the ability to eliminate every possibility except the scenario you are presenting. The criminal investigators apparently can’t do this.
http://www.nzz.ch/international/europa/die-gefahr-eines-russischen-vetos-ist-da-1.18581057 (7/17/15)
http://ria.ru/world/20150825/1206386301.html (8/25/15)
http://maailm.postimees.ee/3339961/hollandi-uurijad-mh17-katastroofi-pohjustas-ilmselt-pind-ohk-rakett (9/24/15)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/-buk-deeltjes-in-lichamen-mh17-slachtoffers~a4157538/ (10/6/15)
The admission that the criminal investigation is far from finished occurred just before the release of the DSB’s final report.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24603085/__Onderzoek_MH17_nog_lang_niet_klaar__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter (10/11/15)
The criminal investigators admitted the day before the final DSB report that although they have persons of interest they do not have any suspects.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24603085/__Onderzoek_MH17_nog_lang_niet_klaar__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter (10/11/15)
The ongoing complaints about the lack of witnesses would be laughable if this wasn’t such serious business. The lack of credible witnesses would be a minor inconvenience if they had the evidence that Ukraine and friends of Ukraine refuse to release. Lacking that hard evidence, they have to rely mostly on physical evidence that has not been under their exclusive custody since 7/17/14. Moreover, they’ve made themselves unwelcome at eastern Ukraine by making it abundantly clear that they want witnesses who only support the Buk scenario. They practically said, “We believe that your dear friends and family members in the militia along with the Russians are responsible for shooting down MH17 with a Buk missile. Please come forward and tell us that this is what you saw and heard.” What did they think the response would be?
The only “witnesses” they have to the flight of a Buk missile are government officials who refuse to hand over anything other than more words to support their claims. Lacking both hard evidence and credible witnesses, the investigators have a lame case even if their Buk scenario is correct. What are the prosecutors going to do, put government official of questionable veracity like John Kerry on the witness stand to say “We saw the launch, we saw the trajectory, we saw the warhead explode beside the cockpit and no, we will not release a shred of hard evidence to prove this claim.”? Good luck with that. Ukraine and friend have given already what little they are going to release. Even Russia has finally figured out that any additional help they offer will be ignored or used against them. The criminal investigators are on their own. Soon they will be turned into scapegoats by the governments who have withheld the hard evidence the investigators desperately need. Who will weep for the investigators?
http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2061644-onderzoekers-mh17-spreken-in-geheim-met-getuigen-oekraine.html?title=onderzoekers-mh17-spreken-in-geheim-met-getuigen-oekraine (10/6/15)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/05/obama-kerry-putin-syria-russia-g-20/2769683/
Finally we have Malaysia kidding us or maybe themselves that notwithstanding their membership in the JIT they are in fact neutral and therefore will be able to convince the Russians to support a UN-backed tribunal. According to former Malaysian diplomat Tan Sri Razali Ismail, “We have to talk to them (the Russians) openly to find out what’s behind their objections and to reach a compromise. It will not be easy but it’s not impossible,” he says. As if the Malaysians don’t know already what is behind Russia’s objections.
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/pushing-just-outcome-mh17 (11/8/15)
Still wondering what specific crime is being investigated by JIT that would require justice? Accidental creation of “collateral damage” in an armed conflict? Does JIT subscribe to a theory of a deliberate shootdown? If so, on what basis?
The only side that could commit the crime *deliberately* was Ukraine. They had a clear motivation for that: to get UN to label the rebels terrorists. If you’ve been following the news you’d see that Ukraine done has a lot of work towards that goal, they even call the operation “anti-terrorist”. In fact, Ukraine was the only side that had a motive for shooting a civilian plane.
The official findings of the Russian makers of Buk missiles agree that it was a Buk, but also explained that it was a model that had ceased manufacture in the 1980s and its shelf life ended many years ago. The only known purchaser of that model was Ukraine govt, which decided to override the company’s expiration orders and is believed to be the only country to possess them.
This critical information was dismissed and not used as evidence by the Dutch investigation.