The Dutch court found fakes and rejected evidence in the MH17 case
On June 7, the trial began in The Hague on the merits of the case of the crash of the passenger Boeing flight MH17 in 2014 in the skies over Donbass. At the meeting, general issues related to the progress of the investigation, the work of the forensic investigator and the dossier are discussed. The judges will also talk about the recent inspection of the reconstruction of the aircraft wreckage at the Dutch Air Force base Gilse-Rijn.
There is a strong odor of bias hanging over the trial, since the Dutch judges, before the final verdict, almost openly name those “culpable” for the crash, a list of which is regularly published in the Western press. These are Igor Girkin (known under the pseudonym “Strelkov”), Sergei Dubinsky (call sign “Khmury”), Oleg Pulatov (call sign “Gyurza”) and Leonid Kharchenko (call sign “Mole”, citizen of Ukraine).
Announcing the start of the hearing, the Hague judges said: “The court will open the criminal investigation into the MH17 case and, having examined and discussed the contents of the prosecution materials, will clarify key issues.” The prosecutor’s office promised in advance that it would provide “deadly facts that will confirm that MH17 was shot down by a Buk air defense missile, handed over to the Donbass rebels by the Russian Armed Forces.
In truth, this “hearing on the merits” is the second attempt by the Hague court to sort out the available materials. The first took place in March 2020. Then the proceedings ended in nothing, since the materials presented seemed too weak even for biased prosecutors.
And now, attempt number 2.
Holland is considered the most affected party - 193 citizens of this country died as a result of the plane crash. The head of the Dutch criminal police, Andy Kraag, encouraged the public by saying: “Today is an exciting moment for us - we are presenting the evidence that we have been collecting for so long, piece by piece... We want to reveal the entire chain - from the crew of the Buk to those who gave the order to this Buk "Complete the task on July 17, 2014."
According to Kraag, the relatives of the victims believe in Dutch justice and are ready to wait for the court's decision, even if the process drags on for years.
The Ukrainian press excitedly reports that “the investigation is also delighted” with the hearing that has begun. They say that they will finally present their evidence that that same fatal Buk belonged to the 53rd Kursk Air Defense Brigade of the Russian Armed Forces.
However, the version of the investigation has long been an open secret and is being diligently promoted in the Western media.
The judges said they would consider evidence on three key issues: whether MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made missile, where the missile was fired from, and the role of the four suspects in the downing.
Prosecutor Ward Ferdinandusse admitted somewhat vaguely: “We do not think that these defendants pressed the button that launched the missile... However, we believe that they played a significant coordinating role in the transportation and deployment of the Buk and its removal back to Russia, which makes them so closely involved that they could be held criminally responsible for the downing of MH17."
According to the prosecutor, he does not exclude the possibility that “these people intended to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft” that was bombing rebel positions. However, this “does not give them the right to claim combat immunity, since they are not members of the regular forces.”
In fact, Genosse Ferdinandussa is stupidly off topic. The International Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare (by the way, The Hague, 1907) explains that combatants (participants in hostilities with the appropriate legal status) are officially recognized as fighters of irregular (for example, partisan or rebel) formations, headed by a commander responsible for their subordinates; a definite and clearly visible distinctive sign from a distance (a ribbon on the headdress is enough); openly carrying weapons; observing the laws and customs of war in their actions.
It is no secret that, by the beginning of the ATO, the command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces transferred 15 Su-25 attack aircraft to the combat area, which could (theoretically) become targets for the Buk air defense missiles. The following line of accusation is being built: the rebels were supposedly going to shoot down a particularly annoying “dill”, but accidentally hit the “Malay”. Yes, rebels have the right to defend themselves, but “those who systematically violate humanitarian law cannot invoke it in criminal proceedings.”
It is interesting that this line of accusation was chosen only because the suspects refused to appear before the investigation, thereby allegedly leaving no other options for considering the case.
As another “evidence,” the prosecution cites the call signs that are allegedly heard in telephone calls intercepted by the SBU. The fact that Ukraine is an interested party in the accusation and the “facts” provided by it are compromised, which is important for the independence of the judicial process, is carefully ignored in The Hague.
It is no less interesting that the “fairest in the world” Dutch court recognized Kiev’s right to execute sentences.
During the “proceedings on the merits of the case,” regret was once again voiced that the US authorities at the last moment refused to provide the court in The Hague with satellite images that allegedly clearly recorded the launch and trajectory of the Buk missile that shot down flight MH17. Previously, this possibility was allowed. The American side explains its refusal by “protecting intelligence sources.”
However, this is not the first time that Americans have hidden satellite intelligence data under the rug that could help in the investigation of the crash of a passenger airliner. On July 17, 1996, a Boeing 747 crashed near New York with passengers on board. The FBI got away with vague summaries of agents' interrogations of suspects, hiding the mandatory video recording in such cases. An independent investigation found that the plane may have been shot down by a US Navy fighter missile.
“Experts say the impact damage to the aircraft’s fuselage is consistent with that caused by missile warheads fired from a Buk anti-aircraft missile system. “None of the damage found is inconsistent with this picture and could not have been caused by any other, lighter or heavier anti-aircraft missile system,” said presiding judge Hendrik Steinhuis.
From which it follows that the court accepted the conclusions of Dutch and Belgian experts for consideration, ignoring the information of specialists from the Almaz-Antey concern, although it had previously been promised that it would be taken into account.
At the meeting they also showed a photo of part of the rocket body that was fired at the plane.
Instead of a full bucket of destructive elements that pierced the plane, the court was presented with two pitiful, “I-beam-like” fragments and 16 more “corresponding in mass,” despite the fact that not a single one of the 1870 destructive elements was found at the site of the plane crash or in the wreckage "butterfly" type.
What is even worse for the investigation, multiple traces of damage by “butterflies” were not found on the wreckage of the fuselage, just as similar multiple lesions were not found on the interior of the aircraft, as well as on the bodies of the pilots. Not even traces of destructive elements were found in the bodies of the passengers, which, in theory, should have made all the experts involved in the investigation think twice about it.
It is interesting that the weight of the destructive elements found and involved in the case is much lighter than 8 grams, while in practice the weight of most fragments after hitting objects is not too different from the original.
It is significant that since October 2014, the Dutch prosecutor's office has stopped answering questions about the results of forensic examinations and metal fragments in the bodies of passengers.
According to Australian pathologists David Ranson and Ian West, who were allowed to examine the bodies (the only ones who made contact with the press), the passengers died not from the lethal elements of the rocket, but from explosive decompression, which well explains the absence of blood on the clothes and bodies of the passengers.
The cockpit area where the “reference” piece was cut from
“A metal fragment was found in part of the plane’s spar. The fragment was studied by specialists, and they came to the conclusion that it corresponds to the bolt plate of a Buk missile launcher,” Steinhuis emphasized.
Close-up photo of the wreckage. According to experts, this is a fragment of the bolt cover of the 9M38M1 missile
Let us not lose sight of the fact that all the metal fragments presented to the court did not undergo an independent metallurgical examination, which the Federal Air Transport Agency proposed to do in hot pursuit. This would have made it possible to avoid falsifications from entering the evidence base at the early stages of the investigation, but the Dutch commission considered this procedure “not advisable.”
The same fragment, but cut out from the cockpit
From the “evidence” that was presented for consideration, it became clear that the main task of the trial is to draw conclusions that MH17 was hit not just by a Buk air defense missile, but specifically by its Russian modification 9M38M1, which is not in service with the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces.
We continue to pull the owl onto the globe. Magnetic detail of the cable wiring of the 9M38M1 rocket. Ukrainian missiles are not equipped with this!
Here, however, there is one thick nuance. Until March-April 2015, the investigation had only fragments found in the cockpit and in the bodies of three Boeing crew members (the Malaysian press assumed that these were two pilots and a senior flight attendant). But in March 2015, several fragments of the rocket shell were suddenly discovered in Ukraine - part of the engine and a piece of aileron, as well as wires. And now this garbage has been accepted by the Hague court as “material evidence.”
A fragment of an aircraft with internal traces of melting and soot that was overlooked by the investigation and the court, supporting the version that MH17 was also blown up from the inside just to be sure.
It is unclear which missiles served as samples for comparison with the “reference materials” for Dutch and Belgian experts. It has been suggested that the Buk missile could have been provided to the investigation by Finland, which conducted its own experiment in the MH17 case. They write that the results of the experiment were never published and were classified.
The ownership of the launcher itself was not considered at this hearing. This topic is left for subsequent legal proceedings.
Interestingly, the court heard testimony from witnesses from the scene who observed and heard the missile launch from the Ukrainian side, but refused to include them in the case. What a selective and capricious themis these planokurs have!
In general, it is already clear that the Hague court does not intend to deviate one iota from the pre-chosen course of hanging all the cards on Russia and the Donbass People’s Militia. Falsehoods and tendentiousness pour out as if from a leaky trash can. True, official statements sound pessimistic notes that this farce will not soon reach the desired result.
In Ukraine they are cautiously rejoicing and writing victorious reports, as if everything that is needed for a guilty verdict has already been done. All that remains is to receive the final piece of paper with a stamp.
I would like to upset the great lordship a little. The version about Ukraine’s guilt in the MH17 disaster is no less, if not more, than the topic of the Russian missile, occupying the minds of the public in the Netherlands, Australia, and there is nothing to say about Malaysia. So the matter will definitely not end with a crooked verdict from the Hague court.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.