Dossier: MH - 17 Crash d'un Boeing malaisien en Ukraine

Despite hinting at otherwise the Dutch investigation has found no evidence of Buk missile shrapnel in the bodies of deceased victims
Australian coroners confirm this having examined Australian victims
This is the reason the Dutch are now scrambling to collect evidence from the ground that would point to that conclusion
Trouble is evidence collected one year after the fact naturally raises questions of authenticity

The report is the culmination of a 15-month air accident investigation, led by the Netherlands but including dozens of other nations.
Largely based on analysis of the wreckage, flight recorders, and damage to victims’ bodies, it is essentially a technical investigation that addresses how MH17 was destroyed - but not why, or who by.

Publication of the MH17 reports: overview
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 the Dutch Safety Board will publish its reports on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17. Below, we provide an overview of the course of events.
At 11.00 a.m. surviving relatives of the victims will first be informed about the results of the investigation
by Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, in The Hague.

At exactly 1.15 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will present the investigation to the media
at Gilze-Rijen air base. After this presentation, the reports will be published (around 1.45 p.m.).

At 4.00 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will be elucidating the investigation during a closed meeting with the Dutch House of Representatives in The Hague.

After the official publication of the report on Tuesday afternoon, Board members Erwin Muller and
Marjolein van Asselt will be informing approximately 75 embassies about the investigation in The Hague.

The reports focus on four themes: the causes of the crash, the issue of flying over conflict areas, the reasons why Dutch surviving relatives had to wait for two to four days for confirmation from the Dutch authorities that their loved ones had been on the aeroplane, and lastly the question to what extent the occupants of flight MH17 consciously experienced the crash.

The investigation was not concerned with question of blame or liability. Answering those question is a matter for the criminal investigation.

During the presentation of the investigation at Gilze-Rijen air base the reconstruction will be shown that
the Dutch Safety Board made of part of the aircraft. Using recovered pieces of wreckage,
part of the cockpit and business class section were reconstructed. The Dutch Safety Board
reconstructed the part of the aeroplane that was relevant to the investigation.

On Tuesday the Dutch Safety Board will also be presenting a video animation explaining the findings and conclusions of the investigation.

English is the language used in international aviation investigation. The reports on flight MH17 will be published in English as well as in Dutch.

It is common practice for the Dutch Safety Board to include a rationale for its investigations in its reports. For the publication of the MH17 reports the Board has opted not to do so for each report individually, but instead to provide a single document covering all of the various investigations. This document, entitled About the Investigation, will be published simultaneously with the reports.On Tuesday 13 October 2015
the Dutch Safety Board will publish its reports on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17.
Below, we provide an overview of the course of events.

"The MH-17 Mystery - Robert Parry
So, Higgins and Bellingcat moved on to the mystery surrounding MH-17, where again the Obama administration rushed to a judgment, pinning the blame on the Russians and ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who were fighting the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

Though again hard evidence was lacking – at least publicly – Official Washington and its many minions around the world formed a new “group think” – Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was responsible for the 298 deaths."
...
"
So, the chances of getting duped must be taken into account when dealing with unverifiable sources of information, a risk that rises exponentially when there’s also the possibility of clever intelligence operatives salting the Internet with disinformation. For the likes of psy-ops innovator Lansdale and propaganda specialist Raymond, the Internet would have been a devil’s playground.

Which is one more reason why President Barack Obama should release as much of the intelligence evidence as he can that pinpoints where the fateful MH-17 missile was fired and who fired it. [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Plays Games with MH-17 Tragedy.”]

The long-awaited Final Report on MH17 crash released by the Dutch Safety Board’ International Commission last week has only left a cold scent in the headlines.

The reason is hardly the booming Syrian epic. The Dutch report lacked the substance so vigorously expected by all concerned parties: direct indication to the perpetrator.

The legally impeccable statement about Ukraine’s failure to comply with its obligation to close the sky over the war-torn area for civilian aircraft was important, but did not answer the key question: who pushed the button?
...

The Australian Federal Police and their Dutch counterparts believe that the Dutch Safety Board has failed to provide "conclusive evidence" of what type of weapons destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and who could have been responsible for the catastrophe, Moscow-based Australian journalist John Helmer notes.

The criminal investigation into the crash of the notorious Malaysian Airlines MH17 on July 17, 2014 in eastern Ukraine requires a "tougher standard than the DSB [Dutch Safety Board] report", Moscow-based Australian journalist John Helmer reports, citing Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation.

"Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a 'tougher standard than the DSB report' is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators," Helmer writes on his personal blog.
...

The West keeps piling the blame for the 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on Russian President Putin although there are many holes in the case and the U.S. government still withholds its evidence, writes Robert Parry.

The Dutch-led investigation into the 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 relies heavily on information provided by the Ukrainian security service and operates primarily from a field office in Kiev, despite the fact that Ukraine should be a principal suspect in the mystery of who was responsible for killing 298 people.

The cozy relationship between the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and the Ukrainian government’s secret service emerges from a JIT report presented to Dutch families of MH-17 victims in the last few days, a portion of which was made available to me.
...
For instance, according to the Dutch intelligence service in a report released last October, the only anti-aircraft missiles in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, capable of hitting a plane flying at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian military.

Nevertheless, Ukraine was invited to join the JIT and play a key role in the investigation along with the investigators from Australia and the Netherlands. Under the JIT agreement, participating governments, which also include Belgium and Malaysia, have the right to block the release of information to the public.

Meanwhile, after CIA analysts had time to evaluate U.S. satellite, electronic and other intelligence data, the U.S. government went curiously silent about what it had discovered, including the possible identity of the people who were responsible. The U.S. reticence, after the initial rush to judgment blaming Russia, suggested that the more detailed findings undercut those original claims.
...

But the question is whether the investigation has been so tainted by its reliance on the SBU, an intelligence service which is controlled by a chief suspect (the Ukrainian government) and whose responsibilities include shielding the state secrets of that suspect. The SBU is also directly engaged in warfare against the other chief suspect (the ethnic Russian rebels).

That obvious conflict of interest should have prompted the JIT to establish clear parameters that guaranteed the independence of the investigation. But the new report makes clear that no such lines were drawn or observed.