JIT: “there will be no public release of a final report on MH17 “

Today the spokesman of the Dutch prosecutor and JIT, Mr de Bruin, confirmed by email that JIT will not publish a final report which will be made public. Once the investigation has finished the results will be handed over to a court of justice. Untill today there is no information about which court will perform the prosecution.

This contradicts the statements of Malaysian PM Razak. Razak  published end of May 2016 at his  personal website

Najib said both he and Putin agreed that both countries would sit down to deliberate on the course of action after the release of the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) report on the criminal aspect of the tragedy in October

Also several newspapers in Malaysia reported about this news. For example the New Strait Times reported at May 25.

JIT denied there will be a report released in October.

Before summer 2016 JIT will announce:

  1. the exact type of missile and warhead used to down MH17
  2. the exact location where the missile was launched from

I asked the spokesman of JIT about the way the above investigation results will be made public. Will it be something like?:

“we established the weapon was a missile of type xxx and launched from village yyyy” End of announcement.

Or will it be: “we established the weapon was a missile of type xxx and launched from village yyyy. We found traces of an explosive used by BUK missiles in a field near xxx. We have several satellite photos showing the BUK being transported from Donetsk to village yyy. We spoke to several eyewitness who saw a BUK TELAR parked in a field next to village yyy.

The spokesman of JIT was not able to tell how many details will be revealed.

Prosecution

At January 4 2016 Minister Koenders of Foreign Affairs told the press he wanted to have clearness within 6 months about the prosecution of the suspects. Options are an international court of a court based on national law of one of the JIT countries.

In early June 6 2016 six months passed with no further news on the prosecution!

13 Comments on JIT: “there will be no public release of a final report on MH17 “

  1. Thank you for obtaining this information Admin.

    So in contrast to the DSB who after long delays released hundreds of pages that told us not much the JIT after long delays will release a paragraph or maybe just a sentence that will tell us not much.

    The JIT has always been vague as you have noted. There was a report in US media that they would release a report by the end of 2015. It didn’t happen.
    http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/08/12/mh17-possible-russian-missile-fragments-found-in-ukraine

    Then in October of last year the head of the SBU said a final criminal report would be made in February 2016. It didn’t happen.
    http://ria.ru/mh17/20151010/1299768038.html

    Now you got their spokesman to admit there will be no public report ever. This news will not be popular with the families of the victims.

    As for their final private report – assuming there will be one – it is clear that the Malaysians already know that they will not be satisfied with it. Otherwise they would not discuss the idea of doing further investigations jointly with the Russians.

    • I don’t know whether the rumours about a joint investigation by Russia and Malaysia are true ot not but it’s fun to watch how those rumours scare the shit out of many people. Possibly including Marcel, as his site has enough material to show that the investigation was on a shaky ground. This site by now allows people to get a glimpse of what might have happened, but the material is not compiled into a nice form. Maybe for the better – those wanting to know need to do a little work on their own.

      • A more general reaction:

        Scientists have no rigid opinions in their work. They evolve with the state of the art into the real state of nature. Otherwise it would be religion. On this site we respect each other in our struggle for the truth. And we don’t mind to change our opinion if there are new facts. So, our task is to falsify hypotheses, what also means we sometimes must confirm what we did not like earlier. Admin has done an amazing job. He brought together very different disciplines.

        There have been new developments about the transport of BUK. We have falsified a lot of scenarios from the past. There are less scenarios left. It goes fine.

        But we have open ends in our theories. For example we cannot combine the new detonation height with the pattern of fragments found. Yet we need a sort of BUK to explain the downing of the MH17. So, we must seek to combine old scenarios or we must develop something completely new. That’s the crisis we are in now.

        • A thoughtful reply, thanks.
          To me it looks like the investigating community decoupled into two camps. One is looking into the Buk pictures/videos and the other is concentrating on the wreckage related forensics. The camps rarely talk to each other and don’t seem to be compatible.

          I notice most people escape the following line of reasoning, which might help joining two camps together. The evidence of the Buk presence at the rebel held area can not only suggest that the Buk was the shooting weapon, but it can also tell us that the Buk evidence can serve as a higher intensive for Ukraine to do a false flag operation framing the rebels as if they used those Buks.

          So, personally, I disregard all Buk related media, thinking that it can equally suggest that either rebels or Ukraine was responsible. Instead I try to stick to the wreckage related forensics, which, so far, pretty solidly points to a false flag operation.

          • Eugene,

            I agree completely. Theoretically, the presence of 9N314M would facilitate Ukraine more than Russia. I do not see any incentive for the Russians in shooting down a passenger aircraft in Ukraine. But I see a strong motive for Ukraine.

            So, maybe the presence of a separatist BUK in Donetsk correlates highly with a false flag of Ukraine. Then there are two choices to make, Ukraine shot down also the MH17 or provoked the separatist to do the job.

            And finally the separatists could have done it all by themselves one way or the other. We must remain open minded to all possibilities as long nothing has been proven

          • Basic Dimension: Thats a scenario I purported earlier too, as well as Andrew. Buk presence in the Snizhne area, followed by all intelligence means available, could be a focal point in developping a false flag.

            Maybe I will explore this more the following weeks, do what I always do, blend some logic with the established facts and then try to draw conclusions (cautiously of course, but with some force).

            Eugene is right. There are two camps. I tried sort of to reconcile them in a blogpost comparing DSB and A-A findings. Many issues re-appeared in the criticism to the DSB report on this site to be explored to the full.

            But my knowledge of physics is old, rusty and rudimentary, though I studied chemistry once with an affinity for flow-mechanics (and political sciences of course, which I *did* develop fully ;-))

            I can understand it up to some point, but as we see now on a twitter flamewar, the pro-Kiev physic engineers try to distract from the big physical/mathematic picture by concentrating on some minor technical detail. See @jetagodi TL for discussion of the plume picture.

            Now I want to publish a short review of problems of all social media evidence constructing the Bcat/SBU Buk trail. Then, next, propose another scenario. It would be imperative to get a list also of all knowledgde that emanated here form the technical discussions and evaluations. Thats where a cooperation could develop itself 🙂

  2. No surprise here.

  3. And you ask why Russia blocked the initiation of a UN tribunal!

    • Denis Cashcov // May 31, 2016 at 3:48 am // Reply

      Russia was happy to follow the correct procedure (as Russians do). And that w2as to wait for the reports to come out.
      How can you possibly have that tribunal announced until the report is out. That is ridiculous!

    • Question is simple. When they received the draft of the final DSB report, and of course also during the proceedings mentioned in appendix V, they knew the blame game was directing in a certain way, dismissing on its course all evidence the Russians and AA brought in (see Stocrhevoy letter).

      A kangaroo show tribunal, set up with the help of Kiev, come on, who would be a docile part of his own hanging?

    • Koenders suggestion was premature and a diplomatic blunder. Why compare this to “Lockerbie”, as many have done? There was no doubt the downing of PA-103 was due to a bomb, so it was clearly an act of terror. Lockerbie was no war zone. It is still to be proven that the downing of MH-17 was a deliberate act and not an error with severe consequences.
      The only comparable incident is the one with the Iranian Airbus and the USS Vincennes. Widely ignored, although DSB indirectly, referred to this case by quoting Doc 9554-AN/932. “The Manual Concerning Safety Measures Relating to Military Activities Potentially Hazardous to Civil Aircraft Operations was developed at the request of the Air Navigation Commission at the eighth meeting
      of its 120th Session. The request was the result of the ANC’s review of the safety recommendations contained in the ICAO fact-finding investigation into the destruction of Iran Airbus A300 flight IR655 on 3 July 1988.”
      Why is this ignored? Perhaps it shows us a mirror, a side we do not like? This is what an important witness wrote: “I cannot bear to read yet another apologia for the Vincennes (CG-49) incident without commenting. Nearly a year after the incident we have learned litle. Many people still believe that the entire affair was precipiated by the Iranians themselves, or that the Vincennes defended herself against an attack. Almost immediately after the event, the media were full of stories speculating about the number of naked bodies in the water, conjuring up visions of an Iranian F-14 using an airliner as cover for an attack, insinuating that the plane that was shot down was to small to be an airbus, or … The number of gunboats actually involved in the surface action grew like Pinocchio’s nose, to a record of 13 or so.” (Commander David R. Carlson, US Navy, commanding officer, USS Sides (FFG-14)).
      The Americans conducted their own research, a total fraud as was made clear by an article of News Week, titled: “Sea of lies”, written four years after the incident. No one was ever convicted. The US paid some compensation, but never apologized or admitted wrongdoing. Not even the harshest critics called it an act of terror, except, of course, the Iranians. No doubt, their reaction was only anti-American propaganda.
      This case does provide a relevant standard with a very high threshold: JIT has to prove, the perpetrator(s) acted knowingly and willfully. If not, JIT will have next to nothing. However international law is not only law, but also politics. This exactly why Russia doesn’t want a tribunal.

  4. Clement Townsend // May 30, 2016 at 10:15 pm // Reply

    You offered the spokesperson two options.

    Neither included the single most important piece of evidence, i.e. something to prove without any doubt whatsover the implementation of the actual criminal act.

    Surely you should have asked:
    “Have you acquired any hard evidence, disregarding any circumstantial evidence, to support your claim that a buk missile was launched from Snizhne?”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*