My prediction for the verdict of Dutch court on request for releasing MH17 documents

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Update June 4:

I was not completely right. The court decided that the Dutch state has to make clear why many sentences were censored. Also some documents were not handed over. The judge states he did not recognize the given reason “personal opinion” for censoring.  Dutch state has to recorrect the censoring within 8 weeks.

————-

In October 2014  Dutch media RTL, De Volkskrant and NOS requested,  based on the WOB law (Freedom of Information Act),  the Dutch government to release information which could provide the journalists insight into the acting of Dutch government on MH17 affairs.

The Dutch government released some documents but all information was censored.

The Dutch media went to court in February to get more info. The court decided the verdict would made public end of March. Then the verdict was extended to the end of April and finally it was extended to at the latest June 3, 2016.

Today the court of Midden Holland let me know that indeed at the last possible day , June 3 2016, the verdict would be announced. Likely, because he was not 100% sure the verdict would be released on June 3.

Below  my prediction of the verdict. 

The judge has been able to read the secret documents. He will agree with the Dutch government release of inside information is a danger to relations between friendly countries. This relation is more important than freedom of information.

This verdict is similar to the acting of the Dutch government so far. This is a long list of facts showing the Dutch government has something to hide.

The big question: what is so important to hide from the public and press?

The Dutch government, by minister Timmermans, was told in the days after July 17 2014 by the Ukraine government what happened to MH17. The public can only guess what the facts are and what was told.

If MH17 was as simple as: “a Russian supplied BUK shot down MH17 on accident” why the secrecy by the Dutch?

Will the next of kin ever know the truth? I do not think so and that makes me very sad.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

44 Comments on My prediction for the verdict of Dutch court on request for releasing MH17 documents

  1. Clement Townsend // June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am // Reply

    “… a danger to relations between friendly countries.”

    Would the judge, needing to remain politically neutral, ignore the fact that Russia is NOT considered a ‘friendly country’ by those wishing to blame Putin?

    If so, then it could be that the Dutch gov has blamed Russia.

    If not, then the Dutch gov has information that could blame the downing of MH17 on Ukraine or a partner.

    Either way, we’ll never know because the JIT are no doubt receiving conflicting information and experience difficulty validating witness statements and realise that digital recording (audio/image/video) can never be 100% attributed to a claimed event.

  2. “Dutch government to release information which could provide the journalists insight into the acting of Dutch government on MH17 affairs.”
    “why the secrecy by the Dutch?”
    perhaps1: BUK had been there for days, but UA + US + Dutch intelligence did nothing.
    perhaps2: US Given SAT intelligence was worthless?
    perhaps3: Europe is still dependent on RU gas + winter happens every year?

  3. Read it.
    Where do they say they start their own investigation?

    They just say “we will outline the research results of the joint investigation team in October.”.

  4. one direction – there is a hard evidence it wasn’t a mistake but on purpose… worst case for all of the suspects
    or
    it was ukraina, even by mistake, it would be bad for the people of ukraine. i got no mercy for the government party.

  5. Liane Theuer // June 2, 2016 at 9:01 pm // Reply

    Some more aspects :
    1. Dutch government knew that Ukrainian government lied several times.
    In private comments they joked about it or practiced harsh criticism.

    2. Dutch government (as some of us) believed that bow-ties were planted. But they could not or did not want to prove it.

    3. The delegation of the investigation authority to the Netherlands was subject to conditions that should not go public.

    4. Dutch government know that the US have no hard evidence of what happened.

    Admin wrote : “If MH17 was as simple as: “a Russian supplied BUK shot down MH17 on accident” why the secrecy by the Dutch?”

    The blame game on Russia is the most important part of the western geo-political strategie. If they could proof their narrative “a Russian supplied BUK shot down MH17 on accident” they would do it with absolute certainty.
    And with the same certainty they would hide the truth if Ukraine would be to blame.

    What troubles me most is that they allow the next of kin to run into a trap.
    A lawsuit against Putin or Girkin has not the slightest chance.

    • Viktor Shevchuk // June 4, 2016 at 6:21 am // Reply

      Liane how do you that 4. Dutch government know that the US have no hard evidence of what happened.
      How can they know everything that the various US depts know?

      • Liane Theuer // June 4, 2016 at 11:51 am // Reply

        Viktor, I meant it in the sense of “The evidence provided by the US to the Netherlands was not convincing”.

        • Viktor Shevchuk // June 4, 2016 at 12:50 pm // Reply

          Yes, it seems clear that John Kerry told the world they had the precise evidence of where the missile was fired from but refused to share that with the Dutch investigation.

          • Interesting obsession people seem to have with Kerry.

            The publicly released US SAT info already placed the BUK near (or to) the burned field.
            I personally do not believe they have any more precise info.
            They have some capability to see/detect ballistic missile launches through clouds, but doubt they see/detect 700kg missile. That is also “inline” with what DSB said bout the US SAT data. 😉

            Kerry should have kept his mouth shut.

  6. Viktor Shevchuk // June 4, 2016 at 12:53 pm // Reply

    Why didn’t the Dutch insist on having it? They know that John Kerry told the world they had it. They know that the US had satellites in place to record it.

    Why didn’t the investigation get that crucial information from America? That information should solve the entire mystery

  7. Viktor Shevchuk // June 4, 2016 at 11:29 pm // Reply

    “What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.”

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/

  8. Liane Theuer // June 5, 2016 at 9:58 am // Reply

    As sotilaspassi is very fast with his „RU trolls“ killer argument, I would like to elaborate on what John Kerry says in this video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r1qAHUVwY

    First the transcript :

    „Well, we know for certain a lot more, Candy. We know for certain that in the last month there has been a major flow of arms and weapons. There was a convoy about several weeks ago of 150 vehicles with armed personal carrior, multiple rocket launchers, tanks, artillary – all of which crossed from Russia into the eastern part of Ukraine. It was turned over to the separatists.
    We know for certain that the separatists have a proficiency that they have gained by training from Russians as to how to use these sofisticated SA-11 systems. We know they have the system. We know that they had the system to a certainty on Monday the 14th beforehand, because the social media was reporting it and tracking it. And on Thursday of the event we know that within hours of this event this paticular system passed through two towns right in the vicinity of the shootdown.
    We know, because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shootdown we detected a launch from that area and a trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft.
    We also know to certainty that the social media immediately afterwards saw reports of separatists bragging about knocking down a plane. And then the so called defense minister, self appointed of the Peoples Republic of Donetsk, Igor Strelkov posted a social media report that bragging about the shootdown of a transport plane. At which point when it became clear that it was civilian they pulled down that particular report. We know from intercepts voices which have been correlated the intercepts that we have that those voices are in fact the voices of separatists talking about the shoot down of the plane.
    They have shot down some twelve planes aircraft in the last month or so. Two of which were major transport planes. And now we have a video showing the launcher moving back through a particular area there out into Russia with a missing, at least one missing missile on it.
    So we have enormous sort of input about this which points fingers.“

    When Kerry speaks about “we”, he does not mean “we, the American Intelligence Services”.
    He refers to social media, SBU, Bellingcat and so on.
    When Kerry says „we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shootdown we detected a launch from that area and a trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft“, it could be that he refers to the plume photo and NOT to their own findings.
    We know NOTHING about what the US really have.

    And look at this video how John Kirby, State Department Spokesperson, weasels himself out of an answer to the question which data the US shared with the Dutch :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqGEXRERg-M

    „There is still an active review going on“, Kirby said. „I´m not talking about what that information is.“

    Admin has noted : „US handed over information“.
    And the given link says :
    „All requested information to the US has been handed over to the AIVD (Dutch secret service).“

    Again : That says NOTHING about WHAT the US really have.
    And I repeat my assessment : „Dutch government know that the US have no hard evidence of what happened.“

    • Antidyatel // June 5, 2016 at 10:18 am // Reply

      Funny, Soli, was specifically claiming in another story that there is no evidence that rebels had BUK before July 14. I forgot that Kerry has such evidence but withholds it
      “We know they have the system. We know that they had the system to a certainty on Monday the 14th beforehand, because the social media was reporting it and tracking it. ”

      Following bthe trend, Soli should declare Kerry as RU troll

      • I suspect sotilaspassi is a RU troll himself, because the inanity of the arguments he uses rarely helps the side he is on.

    • Viktor Shevchuk // June 5, 2016 at 11:50 am // Reply

      Hi Liane, for your assessment to be right, it would mean that.
      1. John Kerry lied (knowing that he would be found out).
      2. Robert Parry’s source lied. Even though Robert Parry says this source had been reliable in the past.
      I think it is unlikely that both these sources with very different agendas would invent such stories when the US had satellites over Ukraine anyway.

      What is more likely is that the US did not share their data with the Dutch, or that the Dutch agreed not to disclose it all. So the Dutch are fudging with the vague claim that they got some data from the US, without disclosing exactly what that data was.
      If Ukraine was responsible, and there is a lot that points to that, it will be EXTREMELY damaging to US interests. EXTREMELY. US interests are far too important to allow damaging information to be made public

    • sotilaspassi // June 5, 2016 at 11:53 am // Reply

      One way how SBIRS operate is that high orbit SAT maintain rough image/map of IR radiation. When it detects IR peak or SIGINT detects targetting radar or missile guidance radio signal, lower orbit high precision IR detectors are turned to the spot. The high precision tracking data can be plotted on the high orbit summary data/image/map.
      But there is no traditional camera photo images.

      • Antidyatel // June 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm // Reply

        “But there is no traditional camera photo images.”

        Why do you continue saying it? It was already discussed here few months ago. SBIRS produces IMAGE

        look for following words in the article and you’ll find an example.
        “The first and only image released for public use from the Sbirs system is this one exclusively provided to Aviation Week for publication in Nov. 20, 2006. ”
        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/sbirs-was-john-kerry-right-and-did-the-us-see-the-buk-missile-launch-and-what-else-did-they-see/

        You did participate in the arguments there, didn’t you? How can you still maintain your strange belief?

        • Antidyatel // June 5, 2016 at 1:46 pm // Reply

          There is still a valid argument of SBIRS ability to see through clouds. But nobody forced Kerry to say those things. So we can conclude that either the cloud cover was not 100% or SBIRS can look though it in some SWIR band, which can still detect thermal emissions for which water vapour is not absorbing

          • Clement Townsend // June 6, 2016 at 3:46 pm //

            To sotilaspassi (1)
            “My collection of BUK eyewitnesses.
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wdV9lRmw3dGI1alU
            Not related to launch, so irrelevant.

            “Some realities:
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wdWFvZC1xMVBSTkE

            Lovely story.
            Please use common sense and try to avoid arguments to score points, it’s not a game.

            The UK Sun, Telegraph & Daily Mail would bite your hand off for a story on the day or the day after.

            There would be many witnesses:
            *Explosive pre-launch noise with ground shaking vibration
            *Extended “whoosh” as missile climbs
            *Sight of plume.
            Examples of BUK launch:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=485_1326862210

            We are all attempting to find the truth.
            Consider the alleged launch site and sightline for surrounding population. 100,000 people live within 10km radius of the alleged BUK missile launch. Those close to Snizhne would be in earshot of the missile’s explosive launch and subsequent thunderous
            roar as it burned it’s fuel and discharged its plume skywards.

            Around 250,000 live within 30km radius of Snizhne. Even those who didn’t hear the alleged launch would have been able to see the missile’s plume.

            To sotilaspassi (2)
            “And large SAM, especially (the many ways confirmed) BUK can not be launched from invisible fighter jet, so there was launch.”
            But not from Snizhne.

        • sotilaspassi // June 5, 2016 at 3:11 pm // Reply

          I admit, “imagery” can be made from any data with some spreadsheets know-how. Just thought people meant something else.

          + images from 250ton Delta4 rocket (or intercontinental missile) is slightly different matter than getting image of 0.7ton missile.

          • Clement Townsend // June 5, 2016 at 9:15 pm //

            Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) is a US spy satellite system designed primarily to detect intercontinental missiles. The system includes several satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Orbiting at heights exceeding 20,000 miles, the accuracy of collected data no doubt depends on strength of a missile’s infra-red signal and flight time.

            The US claim SBIRS data ‘proved’ rebels fired a BUK missile at MH17 from Snizhne. They presented the (cartoon) image to the world’s press. But signal strength from such a relatively tiny missile (substantially less than that of an intercontinental missile) and the flight time of only a few seconds is similar to Air to Air Missiles.

            So SBIRS data could equally be proof of an Air to Air missile (height ratio 30,000ft to 105.6 million ft graduated)

          • Antidyatel // June 6, 2016 at 12:59 am //

            Soti, what are you talking about? The IR imager on SBIRS as normal 2D array of pixels(although there ia suspicion that they added curvature by combining several FPA). The main difference from normal silicon based camera, like CCD or CMOS, is read out circuit. The second issue is the enormous data fro transferring to the ground. Most likely full frame is transferred only avery 10-30 seconds for reference purposes. While the maximum intensity pixels above certain threshold ( representing missiles) are transmitted at original frame rate. It is also possible that full data is still recorded on board and later transfered by free space optical communication link to a proper communication satellite with proper bandwidth for communication with ground. But in any case, in both cases the result is “real time video” of missile trajectory. SBIRS is built for this purpose.

            You reference to the weight of missiles is irrelevant. There is a possible issue for the objects that have sizes requiring sub-pixel resolution. Then the apparent IR intensity will be dropping quickly. But in any case, SBIRS is openly described as capable to support USA army on battlefield by detecting tactical targets, including SAMs. Hence, they have enough sensitivity.

          • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2016 at 4:52 am //

            at Clem

            Flight time of the missile was 30 seconds. 15…20 seconds it flew above clouds. Rocket burn at ~30% power lasted 5…10 seconds above clouds (if detected this burn shows 4…8km long trajectory). After burn there will remain the glow of rocket engine nozzle.

            Surely it is impossible to see that from GEO orbit SBIRS (~40 000km altitude).

            But there is also low orbit SBIRS. That has more capability to pinpoint SAM. ((Other means to detect launch spot is via SIGINT satellite that can detect origin of TELAR radar and or TELAR radio.))

          • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2016 at 4:54 am //

            at Clem 2/2 A2A is proven to be out of question vs MH17.

          • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2016 at 5:03 am //

            at Anti

            I’m sure high orbit SBIRS is not able to pinpoint SAM trajectory. Therefore there now exists also low orbit SBIRS.

            To pinpoint exact trajectory, I’ve read the high orbit device is used to calculate larger area map of IR radiation. By that map low orbit device IR sensors can be turned to track the flying missile.

            According to RU, US had “experimental” spy satellite flying above. It might have been one of those low orbiut SBIRS.

            US intelligence does not use any “real time video” to see if there was missile launch. Their system must be fully automated to work at all. Later they can playback the saved information in any form they like.

          • Clement Townsend // June 6, 2016 at 8:45 am //

            Antidyatel

            “SBIRS is openly described as capable to support USA army on battlefield by detecting tactical targets, including SAMs. Hence, they have enough sensitivity.”

            Care needs to be taken using “openly described”
            Can reflect guarded abilities.
            Consider also low level ground ‘noise’ in warzone.

          • Clement Townsend // June 6, 2016 at 8:52 am //

            sotilaspassi

            “A2A is proven to be out of question vs MH17”
            Nothing is proven.

            The MOST important unproven event is the actual launch. Nobody (not one person) witnessed the launch from Snizhne and reported it on the day to the world’s press despite such info being worth upwards of a million dollars.

          • Clement: there are actually quite a few eyewitness who saw a missile flying. Recorded by at least journalists BBC, Dutch Volkskrant and NOS.
            If you are trying to troll on my website I will make sure that ends very soon. You have been warned.

            Let me challenge you: if it wasn’t a BUK, what weapon was used and why?

          • Antidyatel // June 6, 2016 at 10:00 am //

            Soti, there is absolutely no technical reason for them not to have actual video of the missile above the cloud. Also, it is a direct requirement for use in tactical circumstances. Therr is no much use telling the commander where rocket was launched from 1 day after the battle. Sbirs is also part of missile defense and its primaty target is support in attacking missile during boost phase. It is critical to have life data on trajectory then. Just think logically. It would be helpful to have the full frame reference. They can capture it technically and plot missile trajectory against it. So why wouldn’t they do it?

          • Antidyatel // June 6, 2016 at 10:07 am //

            Clement, ground noise would not be moving at speed of the missile and can be filtered out or just ignored.

        • Clement Townsend // June 6, 2016 at 9:49 am // Reply

          admin

          Please read my post properly.

          “Nobody (not one person) witnessed the launch from Snizhne and reported it on the day to the world’s press despite such info being worth upwards of a million dollars.”

          Link any witness report you can find, just one, from a major national newspaper dated 17th or 18th July 2014. Any ‘witnesses’ thereafter cannot be 100% validated. To achieve 100% validation there HAS to be at least (say) ten reports on the day of the launch (or the following day).

          Over 100,000 people were either within earshot of the explosive launch or within sight of the missile’s plume.

          RE your challenge:
          I have no idea what weapon or weapons were used to bring down MH17. The onus is on the JIT to prove (with hard evidence) that the launch took place from Snizhne. If not, then Ukraine or a partner must be main suspect.

          IMO circumstantial evidence presented so far in this investigation is based on circular dependency, where one piece of evidence is predicated on another. The only problem is the primary event, the focal point, i.e. the launch, never occurred. So all must be considered either fabrications or not relevant.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*