When will Russia play the Josef Resch trump card?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Around mid August 2016 Russian media started to publish news on MH17. The message by all newsstations was the same: Bellingcat lied and falsified evidence, like this article by Kremlin paid Russia Today  wants the reader to believe. The news seems to be related to the September 28 pressconference of the Dutch prosecutor.

Almost all of this propaganda is not copied by Western press. However there is one exception and that is the story of a German former private detective Josef Resch. Newspapers in Germany, the Netherlands , Belgium  and the UK reported about Resch.

It could be Russia will reveal the story of Resch at or close before September 28 when the Dutch prosecutor will have a press conference.


Private detective Josef Resch was contracted by an unknown client to find information on what happened to MH17. Resch found someone who told the client of Resch information that was so interesting  his client paid a reward worth $47 million of Dollars  for that information.

My strong believe this is a Russian secret service operation to confuse public opinion in Europe.

There are a number of blogposts about Resch on this site. Some links in this blogpost.

While Resch was not supposed to know what was told, he secretly listened to the conversation between informant and client which took place in the house of Resch.

German Stern magazine (700.000 copies) published an interview with Resch in March 6 2016. Resch told the magazine he does not know who his client was. He also told “There would be even more grief when people know what happened. I am pretty sure about that. Also I am sure that insiders know much more than is made known to the public. He added: “a couple of governments have a problem when more is made known”. Suggesting Ukraine is behind the shot down.

Around mid July an unknown person dropped documents in the mailbox of Resch. The documents indicate Ukraine was behind the shot down. Resch believed these documents are genuine. Telegraaf reported about this here.

This could lead to two conclusions:

  1. Resch is used by Russia as a messenger
  2. The private conversation secretly overheard by Resch was indeed about Ukraine being responsible for the shot down.

Dutch prosecutor wants to know what Resch knows. First the prosecutor requested German authorities to raid the house of Resch. Then a Swiss bank safe was opened by Swiss police. And now Resch is put under pressure by German prosecutor to tell what he knows. If he refuses he will be fined or go into jail.

Why is Dutch prosecutor so interested in the story of Resch?

You might be wondering why the Dutch prosecutor is so interested in the story of Resch. Very likely because they want to make sure in a court case the defense has no nasty surprises. Prosecutor and JIT wants to make sure the conversation overheard by Resch was a nonsense story intended for propaganda reasons.

At September 28 we will know what kind of evidence JIT has and how strong the evidence is,


The informant who was paid millions of Dollar spoke perfect German. He did not talk about the actual shot down but about what happened after. This reduces the chance the informant was an Ukraine man with inside knowledge of a false flag operation.

The story of Resch will not have impact when it is made public after September 28. At September 28 JIT will very likely announce the BUK missile was launched from a field south of Snizhne. This field was 100% certain under control by the separatists. I strongly believe the evidence presented by JIT will be very convincing.

So if Russia wants to confuse people in Western countries, it will have to make public the content of the conversation which Resch  listen secretly to before September 28.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

17 Comments on When will Russia play the Josef Resch trump card?

  1. But in the interview you posted Resch claims about the information: “…it was not about who pulled the trigger. I do not know that either. But about what happened after the shooting”.

    This counters the idea that his information would be about evidence clearly “suggesting Ukraine is behind the shot down”. Is there a *specific* statement claiming who is “behind” it?

    We cannot have both claims to be true at the same time.

  2. “So if Russia wants to confuse people in Western countries, it will have to make public the content of the conversation which Resch listen secretly to.”
    How do we know Russia knows what was said? How did they find out?

    If we ignore everything that has come from a Russian source the story is still confusing.
    1. John Kerry made claims.
    2. US intelligence has not confirmed these claims
    3. Nato governments have kept what they know secret for the most part.
    4.A lot of the evidence not from non-Russian sources does not meet professional standards. Nothing from Bellingcat would be of real much in a professional court.
    The various intelligence agencies probably know what happened. We can only guess.
    Despite your hopes, it is clear we will get unsatisfactory answers in any forthcoming report.
    We are merely the people. We will not get to find out what happened.

  3. in germany only stern.de reported few times about resch, other big print media skipped it – that info with bank safe, his interrogations and now the last push from german court.
    btw resch is giving only interviews with “news” to capital.de and his buddy there – jens brambusch. there are no comments from readers.

  4. >>At September 28 we will know what kind of evidence JIT has and how
    strong the evidence is

    I dont think so. As an example, I suppose we dont get results of the JIT warhead explosion experiment.

    • I am sure it will be mentioned as one of the proofs for both the launch location and the type of missile/warhead. It would be strange no to refer to it. Another likely proof is chemical analyses of soil samples from the launch site. The third is a comparison of the found missile/warhead parts with those of a reference missile/warhead. Just my prediction.

  5. What is a “chemical analyses of soil samples from the launch site”?

    I dont think that we get a detail description of chimical analyses and its results, only some conclusions without any numbers.

    • Surely without precise concentrations of aluminium (fuel in solid propellants for missile engines) etc in these. So what? Could exact figures convince truthers? By no means.

  6. The initial message was about “and how strong the evidence is”. I do not see an opportunity to speak about the strength of the evidence without detailed description of the evidence.

    • Well, if someone does not trust in JIT’s ability to assess if the evidences are strong enough to make such statements before a trial, any detailed descriptions by JIT will not help to convince him/her.

  7. Well, if someone does trust to JIT so much, he/she do not need a court to convice him/her.

    A reference to the authority and competence of JIT – a bad idea. There is an opinion that in the Netherlands there are no experts on the proper level of anti-aircraft missiles.

    • There is an opinion that unit0 is lacking the ability to assess the qualifications of NL experts. If someone for whatever reason does not trust in competence of JIT, it’s his/her own problem. There will be no alternative anyway, and the members of JIT will not do what they are not supposed to. And if someone in advance does not trust to the future tribunal that will be arranged by JIT countries (for some incomprehensible reasons such people usually trust to the totally lying Russian authorities and their puppets), he/she is just a conspiracist/putinist whose opinions any sensible people do not care about.

      • Slozhny: “… do not care about.”

        Any court which would conclude (with reason or not) that one major party would be “totally lying” and manipulating supplied evidence and influencing native experts (witnesses), will be defunct before it starts because that said party will never submit to that court. What results then is a showcase without justice, without punishment.

        The tribunal can and will only happen when there is first agreement within all relevant parties, which also includes agreement on which evidence will be admitted and which not. For example if a new model calculation would be seen as more authoritative than supplier data. That kind of stuff. Before justice comes trust to allow the court to settle things.

        So the issue of competence is relevant at least to all parties who are going to participate in this trial. They need to agree first. Otherwise the rest of the world will laugh at what’s left to be a toothless show. Which will not surprise me either.

      • That’s about as strong arguments I expect to hear on 28 September.

        All that was until the publication of materials on the MN17 would fit only to magazine of irreproducible results. And there is no reason to believe that 28 it is changed.

        Choosing to keep secret the facts and expertise on such quite complex and multifaceted events does not seem a sensible idea. The Court did not place, and lawyers are not the people who should be in this deal.

        And you should not write me in Putin’s supporters, I find his actions wrong in Ukraine. Reviewed permission from the Federal Council on the use of force in Ukraine – it is a mistake, Ukraine – the case when it was necessary to use force in its entirety.

      • For absolute clarity, I believe the destruction of Ukrainian Air Force aircrafts is conscientious act then and now.

  8. I do not know how about Resch, but primary radar data found overnight.


    • Hmm, that it comes, and that it comes only *now* from the archives of NPO LEMZ OKB, since a while part of “Almaz-Antey”, will not impress many people, I’m afraid. But they do indeed manufacture, maintain and develop the type of civilian radar system in use. But clearly the data has been kept behind. Or as some will suggest “touched”. It doesn’t matter though, radar images can only be useful to confirm the many other lines of evidence. If it shows something else without a credible scenario supplied, it will just be ignored.

      • Even if the primary data there is no new information about the incident with MH17, it can be unpleasant for others. For example in the primary data for half an hour before the shooting down of MN17 may be a mark that is difficult to identify other than the Ukrainian Air Force combat aircraft. Even without a direct relation to disaster MN17 it will be a negative background for the anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian versions.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.