This is why there never will be a courtcase on MH17

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

I believe there will never be a courtcase on MH17. All states involved rather keep the truth hidden, for their own reasons.

There could be three suspects:

  1. Russia delivered a single BUK TELAR and operated it
  2. The separatists captured an Ukraine Army BUK TELAR and operated it
  3. Ukraine executed a false flag scenario with a BUK
  4. A different scenario which we can only speculated about.

If the Joint Investigation Team believes Russia delivered the BUK, which is I believe their many theory, Russia will never cooperate with the court case. I do not think a courtcase will be done without a suspect in sitting in a court building.

Ukraine is part of the Joint Investigation Team. Ukraine will not cooperate with their own conviction. Ukraine is too important in a geopolitical way. The United States will defend Ukraine like it did to France in the Ustica shot down.

Ukraine simply cannot be the suspect in the current relations between US/EU and Ukraine.

So how to find out truth?

First the official investigation will need to be finished. Then it needs to be decided if a court case will be started.

If there will not be court case in a couple of years, a Dutch parliamentary investigation will likely start. If the outcome will show that there are a lot of unknown facts, a second investigation by a Dutch prosecutor will start. My guess is that will not before 2021/2022 or so. At that time the current Dutch government has been replaced, maybe relations in EU have been changed.

In my personal believe MH17 will follow the same path as the Itavia DC9. After about 30+ years the truth came out but still not for 100% certain.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

4 Comments on This is why there never will be a courtcase on MH17

  1. James O'Neill // April 10, 2016 at 11:26 am // Reply

    As to scenarios 1 and 2 that you cite, you need to consider the report of the Dutch Security Services and also Appendix T of the Dutch Safety Board Report. Both sources effectively demolish your scenarios.
    You should also consider the agreement between the members of the investigating team signed on or about 8 August 2014. That agreement, the details of which have never been published in the mainstream press, provide that the report of the JIT will not be published unless all (then 4, now 5) parties agree. This effectively gave a right of veto over publication.
    The only feasible beneficiary of that secrecy is Ukraine.
    We now know that the Americans have released their satellite data to the JIT, as set out in Fred Westerbeke’s letter to the Dutch families of the MH17 tragedy. It is a very open question as to whether that information will ever be publicly released.
    May I suggest that you energies should be directed to having that data published. It will solve most if not all of the major questions, such as who shot the missile and from where.

  2. The allocation of blame can be split into two processes:

    1: The perpetrators: which process starts after completion of the investigation.

    2: The facilitators: which process should have started on July 18 2014.

    The facilitators.

    There is no reason to postpone the judgment on the facilitators as their misbehavior is independent from the actual crime.


    Keeping open the airspace for civil aviation in a civil war zone is the incitement of war crimes by conditional intent (dolus eventualis) with probability consciousness. Hence, Ukraine is fully guilty of war crimes, incitement to murder (war crimes against civilians) within a war strategy, even though Ukraine may not itself have downed MH17.

    Dolus Eventualis refers to where a perpetrator foresees indirect consequences as a possibility. The legal definition of Dolus Eventualis is Awareness of the likely outcome of an action.

    Ukraine deserves the full model of incitement to killing of civilians: War crime:

    Ukraine had been warned by already 20 shot down planes at lower height, but also by the YouTube film of Elena Kolenkina at JUNE 21, 2014, a month (!) before MH17 was shot down:

    [- Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they could not be touched by the separatists:]

    [(1:32/2:14). This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

    Another warning possibly came from Europol to shut down civil aviation immediately, several days before the downing of MH17.


    Pantsirs (15 km alt) and BUKs (15 km) easily reach civil aviation altitude of 10 km. If delivered by Russia, this country is fully guilty of war crimes by incitement to murder (war crimes against civilians) within a war strategy, even though Russia may not itself have downed MH17.

    Also Russia deserves the full model of willful killing of civilians:

    War crime:

  3. “All states involved rather keep the truth hidden, for their own reasons.” – If we assume that Russia was not involved, for what reasons would they ‘rather keep the truth hidden’? If they’d have a way of entirely proving their innocence, why not do so?

    • First, you’re expecting Russia to prove a negative – that they had nothing to do with it. It’s like asking Putin to prove he has never beaten his wife.

      In order to establish their innocence beyond a doubt Russia would have to prove beyond a doubt who did it. How can they eliminate all doubt? They don’t have the recorded conversations between MH17 and Ukraine ATC. They don’t have Ukraine’s radar data. They don’t have the flight data recorder. They don’t have the cockpit voice recorder. They don’t have the radar and satellite data that are in Western hands. They don’t have the physical debris. They don’t have control over how opposing government and the mainstream western media will spin whatever additional evidence they may produce.

      Second, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused. Mere accusations to not obligate Russia to do anything.

      Third, the fact that Russia has participated to a limited extent in the investigation, disclosed formerly classified information about the Buk weapon system and performed experiments at their own expense does not obligate them to do anything more.

      Fourth, what is more valuable to Russia, global public opinion or higher level relationships with other governments. The truth about MH17 ceases to be a bargaining chip in international negotiations when the truth becomes public.

      Fifth, what would happen if Russia’s claimed innocence became a self-evident truth? Like it or not, Russia would become the “owner” of the economic basket case and moral cesspool that is Ukraine. Why would Russia want that? Doesn’t Russia have enough problems already?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.