Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 Crashes in Ukraine


The Living Force
In his analysis of the July 3, 2020 session John Helmer concentrates entirely on the rejection of the defense's request to hear Major-General Igor Konashenkov and other Russian Defense Ministry officers about the possession of the 'murder weapon' which would implicate Ukraine.

Dutch MH17 judge refuses to accept Russian evidence that Buk missile was Ukraine's --

In the readers' comments under the article cope2 added the following from this link:

Hoisted With Their Own Petard: Ukraine's Influence Operations Against Europe

The crash of Malaysian Boeing-777 over Donbass can be called the biggest and possibly the most successful and cynical campaign of Ukrainian and British special services, launched to influence the international community and leaders of foreign countries. I described in details the long and careful process of preparations to this provocation in my documentary. The authorities left the air space above the conflict zone opened on purpose, despite the use of their own combat aviation in the Donbass and an obvious threat to civilian airplanes. The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine commenced to publish falsified operations maps in advance and diminished the size of territories controlled by the Ukrainian Army. The Security Service of Ukraine prepared fabricated audio recordings of the telephone conversations by militia in advance. The British secret services sent two agents to the battle zone. They monitored the operation preparations on the spot. SBU officers General Kondratyuk and Lieutenant-Colonel Vasily Burba accompanied them. The Armed Forces of Ukraine removed the 2nd battalion of the 156th anti-aircraft missile regiment from combat duty in Mariupol and secretly relocated it to the zone where Boeing was downed. I think it was exactly the unit that launched a missile.


The Living Force
Now that the court is adjourned till August 31, 2020 John Helmer wraps up his analysis with an overview of the preliminary hearings while giving ample attention to comments made earlier by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Dutch writing on the Ukrainian wall: Steenhuis ruling in MH17 trial prejudges verdict --

A few snippets:

The ruling issued on July 3 by Dutch district court judge Hendrik Steenhuis (lead image, right) requires the Russian defendant, Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Pulatov (centre), to prove his innocence with evidence prepared by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU). By the standard announced a month earlier by the Russian Foreign Ministry, this is a fundamental violation of Pulatov's legal rights, making a guilty verdict inevitable.

Russian and international lawyers believe the defence lawyers should walk out. "In the conditions which the Dutch court has set," comments Canadian Christopher Black, a veteran litigator in international war crimes trials, "this is now nothing more than the Ukrainian civil war fought by the Kiev regime with lawyers instead of soldiers. It's a show trial. Nothing more than propaganda. No legal right for the accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to appear in person - three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence lawyers should withdraw."
"The charges are vague when they should be specific," Black comments. "Any defence lawyer would complain that it is not a proper indictment. In the [Anglo-American] common law when a charge is vague like that the defence can demand 'particulars' — that is, details of the specific acts which the accused are alleged to have committed, so that the defence can be prepared."

Zakharova's statement was in layman's language. Lawyers say the criminal law standards which the Foreign Ministry was invoking are the onus of proof; the admissibility of evidence; the chain of custody of evidence; presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On Friday Steenhuis ruled to dismiss the defence request to interview the Russian Defence Ministry spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, for his evidence of the Ukrainian BUK. "The relevant records relate to the years 1986 and 1987," the judge claimed. "In that light, the court does not see how interviewing this witness [Konashenkov] can contribute to the question of where a specific missile mentioned in that record is located in the year 2014. For that reason alone the court is of the opinion that interviewing this witness cannot be of importance for any decision to be taken in the criminal case of the accused. The request is therefore rejected" (Min 58:50 to 59:40). For more details, read this.

Steenhuis went further. He refused to rule on whether to approve other requests from Pulatov's lawyers for fresh witness and evidence verification until and unless Pulatov presents his defence to the charges. "The accused has not yet made any concrete statements about allegations against him. And that means the court cannot yet determine how granting the investigation requests relating to that alternative interpretation can contribute to the accused's ability to conduct a proper defence [Min 45:13] given that it's not clear which parts of the allegations against him he contests, or which alternative scenario the accused espouses" [Min 45:23].

This claim astonishes experienced criminal lawyers. They say the judge here reverses the onus of proof. Instead of the requirement in a normal court of law, required by the Dutch criminal code of procedure, that the onus of proof of a crime is on the prosecution to demonstrate, Steenhuis is requiring Pulatov to defend his innocence with evidence of whatever alternative to the prosecution's evidence he can come up with.

"The court is currently unable to assess the pertinence of a significant number of [defence] requests and the court will therefore postpone taking a decision with respect to those requests until the defence has specified its other investigation requests within the timeframe to be set, and it becomes clear which parts of the indictment the accused disputes, or which position he wishes to adopt with respect to that" [45:53].

Russian lawyers believe the record the Dutch judge has now made is too illegal by international standards to ignore. The purpose of representing Pulatov in the preliminaries, they add, has been served. To continue, they are discussing in Moscow, makes Pulatov's lawyers accessories in the Dutch government's campaign against the Russian state.


The Living Force
Source: Netherlands files human rights case against Russia over downed Flight MH17

Netherlands files human rights case against Russia over downed Flight MH17

By Zack Newmark on Friday, 10 July 2020 - 15:05

The Dutch government announced on Friday it has filed a case against Russia for its role in the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 disaster in which nearly 300 people were killed. The case was filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with the Netherlands confirming it would also notify the UN Security Council about the legal action.

"Nearly six years since the downing of Flight MH17, which killed all 298 people on board, the pursuit of truth, justice and accountability remains the top priority for the Dutch government," the Cabinet said in a statement. An international team of experts and investigators brought in to conduct research into the July 17, 2014 plane crash determined that a surface-to-air Buk missile from the Russian military was used to bring down the Boeing 777 passenger jet. The missile and its transporter were handled by both Russian military and the separatists, prosecutors alleged when charges were filed against four suspects in the case.

The inter-State application was filed to the ECtHR in Strasbourg, where the next-of-kin of several victims have also filed individual complaints against Russia dating back to May 2016. With the inter-State application, a large volume of intelligence gathered by the Dutch government will be shared with the surviving family members to also support their cases.

"Achieving justice for 298 victims of the downing of Flight MH17 is and will remain the government’s highest priority," said Stef Blok, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. "By taking this step today – bringing a case before the ECtHR and thus supporting the applications of the next of kin as much as we can – we are moving closer to this goal."

The government said in a statement that it was standing in support of all 298 victims, regardless of their citizenship, as well as their surviving family members. The plane crash victims represented 17 different nationalities, including 193 people who were from the Netherlands.

The four suspects currently on trial for shooting down the aircraft include Russian military official Oleg Pulatov, Russian men Sergey Dubinskiy and Igor Girkin, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko. Pulatov is the only one of the four to be represented by attorneys in the Netherlands, with some speculation that Pulatov might testify in the case.

"The government attaches importance to continuing the meetings with Russia on the matter of state responsibility. The purpose of these meetings is to find a solution that does justice to the enormous suffering and damage cause by the downing of Flight MH17," the Dutch government said on Friday.

Similar: Netherlands to take Russia to European Court of Human Rights over MH17 downing -

International coverage in English:
Dutch Government to Take Russia to European Court Over MH17
Netherlands Takes Russia to Human Rights Court Over MH17 Crash

Coverage in Dutch:
Nederland sleept Rusland voor de rechter vanwege MH17
Nederland daagt Rusland voor mensenrechtenhof om neerhalen MH17
Nederland daagt Rusland voor rechter vanwege rol bij neerhalen MH17

Maakt Nederland kans met aanklacht tegen Rusland voor het Europees Hof?


The Living Force
Archiving the latest from SOTT. John Helmer also analyses in extenso the Dutch move to take Russia to the Court of Human Rights:

Posturing: Dutch PM files claim against Russia in EU human rights court over MH17 despite decision to delay all Ukraine-Russia cases --

Main argument:
"By submitting an inter-State application," Rutte's statement explained, "the government is sharing all available and relevant information about the downing of Flight MH17 with the ECtHR. The contents of the inter-State application will also be incorporated into The Netherlands' intervention in the individual applications submitted by the victims' next of kin against Russia to the ECHR. By taking this course of action the government is offering maximum support to these individual cases."

In fact, according to international lawyers, the Dutch move contributes nothing to the individual cases now pending from MH17 victims' families because the court has suspended all of them since December 2018.

The lawyers also point out the contradiction between alleging in the criminal trial in The Hague District Court now under way that the Russian government and military were not behind the actions of the four men accused of the shoot-down; and Rutte's allegation of Russian state guilt to the European court. "This isn't just parallel litigation, which the ECHR has already refused to allow," commented a London legal expert. "It's a vote of no confidence in the Dutch prosecutors to secure convictions in the murder case they are trying to make."

Rutte's move has been dismissed in The Netherlands by Dutch lawyers, and also by victims' families, as cynical electioneering. The prime minister, they believe, is attempting to hold on to power before the general election due next March despite having lost the majority of party votes in both houses of the Dutch parliament.

"For our prime minister Rutte," commented Dutch lawyer Alfred Vierling, "this entire circus is the crucial test case for his higher political ambitions. He has promised to the victims' families that the proverbial last stone will be turned over. Maybe, but I expect that we shall all be crushed under a pile of lies first."

"The new Dutch move," responds Canadian war crimes specialist, attorney Christopher Black, "is an attempt to mask the fact that the trial before the Dutch courts is a biassed, one-sided affair, based on unsupported claims of the Kiev regime and the suppression of the evidence provided by Russia and eye-witnesses that support the case that the Kiev regime and its allies are responsible for the shoot-down. Instead of bringing justice to the victims, this is another attempt by NATO to deny them the real justice they are due."



Jedi Master
Дело о крушении «Боинга» МН17 может кардинально изменить ход
10.08.2020 - 6:00

The case of the crash of the "Boeing" MH17 can dramatically change the course
10.08.2020 - 6:00
The investigation of the MH17 case may soon come to an end. The Netherlands has not been able to prove Russia's guilt. Under certain conditions, Ukraine can be blamed for the death of 298 people. If this happens, the former Kiev elite will face big problems.

The turn in the investigation of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing may occur due to the fact that Amsterdam has appealed to the European court of human rights (ECHR). And if earlier the Russian side was closed its mouth, now it is impossible. Representatives of the Russian Federation will have an advantage, since Dutch law enforcement officers will not be able to block Moscow's attempts to achieve an objective review of the case.

This opinion, in particular, is held by aviation expert Yuri Antipov. According to him, the situation around the crash case may change dramatically.

"Now the Dutch are" cooking in their own juice", not allowing Russia to be considered. However, when several countries participate in the European court of human rights, Russia will be able to take part in the same way and respond with reasoned arguments to the points that will be voiced there," the expert said.

Failure in the ECHR will draw attention to the politicization of the investigation process of this long-running case. The whole world will see with their own eyes that the investigation is trying to shift the blame to Russia. Petro Poroshenko and those politicians who supported the Maidan in 2014 will eventually have to answer for the downed Boeing.

The ECtHR has already notified Russia of the claim from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It was a small matter. It is possible that Amsterdam specifically took this step so that Kiev would not be responsible for the death of 298 people.

Anton Orlovsky, especially for " Russian Spring»

Дело о крушении «Боинга» МН17 может кардинально изменить ход


The Living Force
Thanks youlik for keeping an eye on these developments. If all goes according to this scenario we'll be witnessing a massive boomerang effect as there probably never has been one. :knitting:
Top Bottom