MH-17 Probe Relies on Ukraine for Evidence

Exclusive: The oft-delayed probe into the 2014 shoot-down of MH-17 over eastern Ukraine has been tainted by its dependence on Ukraine’s intelligence service for much of its evidence, as a new interim report makes clear, reports Robert Parry.

By 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.

A Malaysia Airways' Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

A Malaysia Airways’ Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

What was perhaps most startling in the breezy travelogue-style “e-zine” report was how dependent the investigation has become on data supplied by Ukraine’s security and intelligence service, the SBU, which also is an active participant in the war against ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and is responsible for protecting state secrets.

Yet, according to the report, the SBU has helped shape the MH-17 investigation by supplying a selection of phone intercepts and other material that would presumably not include sensitive secrets that would implicate the SBU’s political masters in Ukraine. But the JIT report seems oblivious to this obvious conflict of interest, saying:

“Since the first week of September 2014, investigating officers from The Netherlands and Australia have worked here [in Kiev]. They work in close cooperation here with the Security and Investigation Service of the Ukraine (SBU). Immediately after the crash, the SBU provided access to large numbers of tapped telephone conversations and other data. …

“At first rather formal, cooperation with the SBU became more and more flexible. ‘In particular because of the data analysis, we were able to prove our added value’, says [Dutch police official Gert] Van Doorn. ‘Since then, we notice in all kinds of ways that they deal with us in an open way. They share their questions with us and think along as much as they can.’”

The JIT report continued: “With the tapped telephone conversations from SBU, there are millions of printed lines with metadata, for example, about the cell tower used, the duration of the call and the corresponding telephone numbers. The investigating officers sort out this data and connect it to validate the reliability of the material.

“When, for example, person A calls person B, it must be possible to also find this conversation on the line from person B to person A. When somebody mentions a location, that should also correlate with the cell tower location that picked up the signal. If these cross-checks do not tally, then further research is necessary.

“By now, the investigators are certain about the reliability of the material. ‘After intensive investigation, the material seems to be very sound’, says Van Doorn, ‘that also contributed to the mutual trust.’”

So, despite the fact that some “cross-checks do not tally” and require “further research,” the JIT has decided that the SBU’s material is “very sound” and underpins a “mutual trust.”

Personnel Concern

Another personnel concern is that the long assignments of investigators in Kiev over a period of almost two years could create compromising situations, especially considering Kiev’s reputation as a European hotbed for prostitution and sex tourism as well as the possibility of less transactional human interaction.

According to the JIT report, four investigating officers from Australia are stationed in Kiev on three-month rotations while Dutch police rotate in two teams of about five people each for a period of a “fortnight,” or two weeks.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years ago.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

The relative isolation of the Australian investigators further adds to their dependence on their Ukrainian hosts. According to the report, “The Australian investigators find themselves a 26 hour flight away from their home country and have to deal with a large time difference. ‘For us Australians, it is more difficult to get into contact with our home base, which is why our operation is quite isolated in Kiev’, says [Andrew] Donoghoe,” a senior investigating officer from the Australian Federal Police.

Despite the collegial dependence on the SBU’s information, it has not led to a quick resolution of the mystery of MH-17. Last week, the JIT informed Dutch family members  that its investigative report on the case has been postponed again, now not expected until after the summer, more than two years after the disaster, and even then the report will not be open for public examination.

The long delays in the investigation and the curious failure of the U.S. government to share usable data from its own intelligence services have caused concerns among some family members that the inquiry into who was responsible for shooting down the plane has been compromised by geopolitical pressures.

Immediately after the shoot-down of the flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, the U.S. government sought to pin the blame on ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and their Russian government backers, but – as more evidence emerged – the possible role of a Ukrainian military unit became more plausible.

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.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the CIA’s conclusion pointed toward a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17. But I have been unable to determine if that assessment represented a dissident or consensus view inside the U.S. intelligence community.

Ignoring Substance

The new JIT report doesn’t address much of substance, such as the findings of Dutch (i.e., NATO) intelligence that the Ukrainian military had several powerful anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, and that the Russian-backed rebels had none, nor does it reference the dog-not-barking silence of U.S. intelligence.

Still, the JIT “e-zine” report bubbles enthusiastically about the investigators’ comradeship with their Ukrainian hosts, despite some early difficulties.

“An incredible amount of research material; differing legal systems and initial unfamiliarity with each other. Despite this, both Australian and Dutch members working in the Field Office in Kiev have managed to build good relations with each other and with the Ukraine to effectively conduct the investigation into the MH17 crash,” the report said.

“In an office building in Kiev, Australian and Dutch investigating officers are working in cramped conditions in a small room. The working conditions are far from perfect, but the small room has a great advantage: the investigating officers cannot possibly get round each other.

“They are professionals who recognize each other’s love for the police work. They understand each other’s circumstances. And they are, regardless of their country of origin, motivated to do their utmost to uncover the truth. …

“Beyond the investigation area of the MH17 investigators office is a long narrow room filled with desks, after which there is another small room. Not exactly a room like you may imagine on the basis of the name ‘Field Office’, but still, it is the name used for this accommodation. …

“‘The thing is to see how you can keep it workable”, says Van Doorn, ‘we like practical solutions. That means ‘poldering’ [the Dutch practice of policy-making by consensus].”

It’s clear that the JIT investigators from Australia and the Netherlands have fallen into routines from their long stints in Kiev, as the “e-zine” report describes in its golly-gee-whiz style:

“Every morning, a minibus brings investigating officers from the hotel to the Field Office and back again in the evening after their long days. In the meantime, the investigating officers make various interesting discoveries. Every time persons or locations are identified, they experience a eureka moment, especially if after several checks all data prove to be correct.

“‘This is the most complex and difficult investigation I have ever been involved with in my police career’, says Donoghoe, ‘but we are all extremely motivated to do the best investigation possible. We won’t stop before the perpetrators of this tragedy can be brought to court.’”

President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

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.

[For more background on this controversy, see Consortiumnews.com’s “More Game-Playing on MH-17.”]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

image_pdfimage_print

32 comments for “MH-17 Probe Relies on Ukraine for Evidence

  1. Erik
    June 5, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    The delay proves that they are denying the existence or utility of hard evidence available to them such as radar info, satellite photos, and Air Traffic Control logs. That and their reliance upon social media evidence means that their conclusions will be worthless. No doubt they will produce “social media” trash evidence vaguely implicating Russia or East Ukraine, and deny that there is anything more. But if they say that, or that the guilty party is unknown, we will know that they have no credible evidence that it was Russia or East Ukraine. They will not likely blame a West Ukraine private party, because he may claim a West Ukraine official go-ahead, leaving them under suspicion despite denials.

    • Peter Loeb
      June 6, 2016 at 11:01 am

      RACE MATTERS?

      “…Another personnel concern is that the long assignments of investigators in Kiev over a period of almost two years could create compromising situations, especially considering Kiev’s reputation as a European hotbed for prostitution and sex tourism as well as the possibility of less transactional human interaction.

      According to the JIT report, four investigating officers from Australia are stationed in Kiev on three-month rotations while Dutch police rotate in two teams of about five people each for a period of a “fortnight,” or two weeks.

      A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years ago.
      A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

      The relative isolation of the Australian investigators further adds to their dependence on their Ukrainian hosts. According to the report, “The Australian investigators find themselves a 26 hour flight away from their home country and have to deal with a large time difference. ‘For us Australians, it is more difficult to get into contact with our home base, which is why our operation is quite isolated in Kiev’, says [Andrew] Donoghoe,” a senior investigating officer from the Australian Federal Police…”
      —R. Parry, above

      “Transactional l interactions”?

      Are Ukranian female victims white?

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Peter Loeb
        June 6, 2016 at 11:05 am

        ONCE AGAIN, THANKS FOR AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE.

        —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Erik
        June 6, 2016 at 4:17 pm

        There are no racial remarks at all in my comment or in the article, so not sure what you are referring to. Why quote half of the article in a comment?

  2. Joop
    June 5, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Letter from the Australian minister of foreign affairs, Julie Bishop, which ackknowledge the existensce of an non-disclosure agreement. This letter was obtained due to a FOIA request.

    https://daliamaelachlan.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/mh17-letter-blurred.jpg

  3. Joop
    June 5, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    The same 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. Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. “Dutch prosecutors require
    conclusive evidence on other types of missile,” Donoghoe said, intimating that “initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile” did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14787

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14812

    Do you think there’s mutual consensus between the four parties?

    • Kiza
      June 6, 2016 at 3:20 am

      Thanks for absolutely great links. The first blog had something very interesting:
      “In court, in addition to members of the Coroner’s staff, there was one government intelligence agent who kept his official identification tag inside his coat, and refused to say whether he was an Australian or American national.”

      Why is an unidentified intelligence agent present at a coroner’s hearing? Strange, is it not? A guiding hand, ready to report any career-threatening transgressions of the investigators?

  4. Tom Welsh
    June 5, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    “A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the CIA’s conclusion pointed toward a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17”.

    It would be hard to mistake the four-engined (and thicker-bodied) Il-76 for a twin-engined Boeing 777.

    As for the “oligarch” theory, it cannot obscure the fact that if MH17 was shot down by Ukrainians – any Ukrainians – that is the tresponsibility of the Ukrainian regime.

    • Joop
      June 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      As I said before, it’s not a coincidence the Ukraine primary radar data is missing, even as the Kiev tapes, for that matter.

    • Joop
      June 5, 2016 at 6:27 pm

      “Do not give me Russian sources”

      Are you satisfied with a Dutch mainstream source, which read; “There was an airwar going on during the MH-17 dissaster.”

      http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/07/11/boven-oekraine-vond-tijdens-ramp-mh17-een-luchtoorlog-plaats

      while Kiew said they had no jetfighters in the air that day?

  5. ranney moss
    June 5, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    I note that recent articles on the shootdown have not mentioned some things reported at the beginning, and I’m wondering how those reports or questions were resolved. One early report was that an air controller in Kiev had told the plane’s pilot to take the route over a conflict area that caused it to be shot down and that other commercial planes took a different, safer route. Is this true or not? Also an early report said that the plane was told to fly at a slightly lower altitude than it would normally have flown, and/or that if the plane had been flying at it’s usual altitude, even the Buk missiles might not have reached it. Further, it was stated early on that BUK missiles need to have their radar (or something) turned on before they can operate and the radar switch is in Kiev. Perhaps I misunderstood. All these points seemed very pertinent to me and I waited, in vain, for more information confirming them or not.
    However once the investigation began in earnest no mention of these reports have been made. If they are true, with orders coming from the control tower in Kiev, it’s hard to imagine that this was anything other than a Ukrainian government plot designed to make the world think Russians had shot down the plane. You don’t even need the US data to convince most that this is true.
    I hope Consortium will write another article explaining this.
    Thanks!

    • Curious
      June 5, 2016 at 10:25 pm

      Well, they count on many people being uninformed coupled with short attention spans. This is why Consortium does a good deed by keeping this story about MH-17 alive since most people want to think its the evil Russians, end of story.

      I seriously doubt we will see some hard evidence from our corporate media regarding many truths. It’s very possible the investigation will not release the raw radar data at all since it may show some Ukraine military planes, and also (perhaps) US/NATO AWACS in the area.

      The families of the victims deserve so much more than false narratives for two years.

      The investigation is taking place in Kiev?

      Also, if one remembers, the Russian bomber shot down in Syria was videoed by at least four cameras on both sides of the border. In itself this points to pre-planning of a sort, and then throw in the reports of AWACS leaving Greece and Saudi Arabia to the area points to a lot of involvement. I would think MH-17 involved even more high intelligence.

  6. Abe
    June 5, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Deception operatives Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat sent their MH17 “investigation” to the JIT in late December 2015.

    The JIT’s MH-17 probe relies on Higgins for “evidence”.

    Significant pieces of Higgins’ “evidence” were supplied by the Interior Ministry of Ukraine.

    In Utrecht, Netherlands on May 27th, Higgins gave a presentation titled “MH17 And The End of Secrets” at the Campus Party Europe 2016 technology event.

    Video: view MINUTES 3:08:45-3:48:15
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_46k0Xbk26U

    Campus Party is a week-long, 24-hours-a-day technology event where young fans of Internet and technology come together for networking, workshops, hackathons and other activities.

    The mostly student audience in Utrecht was easily impressed by Higgins “open source” deception and had no substantive questions (typical of the carefully selected public venues at which Higgins speaks). Campus Party NL offered the obligatory Tweet that Higgins’ talk was “chilling”.

    Fake “citizen journalist” Higgins collaborated with Maks Czuperski from the Atlantic Council for a presentation to students at University College Utrecht on April 1st.

    • Joop
      June 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      As a Dutchman, I believe the same report was presented to the Dutch government.

  7. Robert HARNEIS
    June 5, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    ” … the SBU, an intelligence service which is controlled by a chief suspect (the Ukrainian government)”

    No it is not, it is controlled by the United States government

  8. Joop
    June 5, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Yes, Iran-contra was a hoax!

  9. Zachary Smith
    June 5, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    MH-17 Probe Relies on Ukraine for Evidence

    They have the whole thing on autopilot.

    “garbage in, garbage out
    phrase of garbage

    used to express the idea that in computing and other spheres, incorrect or poor quality input will always produce faulty output.”

  10. Hoyeru
    June 6, 2016 at 1:17 am

    Well, since Russia ain’t complaining, that means they don’t have problems with getting effed. Why do Russia’s work for them? If they wanna complain, let them do it themselves. Shrug.

    • Kiza
      June 6, 2016 at 2:54 am

      You are wrong that Russia did not complain. However, there is a limit to what the Russians can do. The only hard evidence presented to the investigators and international media were Russian data about this flight and the presence of a Ukrainian military jet in its general vicinity, but even this was not mentioned in any of the official reports.

      It is clear that the Dutch and the Australian police involved in this investigation are not biased, they are doing their job. Some of them could be compromised, but I am sure that all could not be. The problem with this sordid affair is that the results of the investigation have been predetermined, and the police are only going through the motions. The problem was created at the top and it is being protected from the top of the Western political dung heap. For example, both parties in Australia, the Liberals in power as well as the Labor opposition, knew several hours after the event that the Russian rebels did it, based on their statements to the media. Why would they need an investigation, to prove that they are rotten US parrots (of course they are)?

      Even if the rebels shot down MH17, by international law, this would then be a shared responsibility between Ukrainian post-coup government and the rebels (the flight should not have been routed over a war zone). Then to include the Ukrainian coup government into this investigation and even give it the right of veto over the release of information is simply the second crime, after the shoot-down, perpetrated by the Western governments. The victims are used as just political points scoring material against Russia for the Western Governments involved (primarily Dutch and Australian on behalf of US).

      But the shoot-down happened to get EU to introduce country-on-country sanctions on Russia, which was achieved, MH17 was a classical false-flag. What is happening now is just the clean-up job, getting the investigative reports to say the same as what politicians said before. Maybe one day one of the police will spill the beans on how fixed this investigation was.

  11. Greg Rabunovich
    June 6, 2016 at 3:34 am

    “the investigators are certain about the reliability of the material”

    What about the completeness of the materials? Does the material include phone calls from/to the Ukrainian servicemen who manned BUK’s operating in the area?

  12. William Beeby
    June 6, 2016 at 5:28 am

    The people who are blocking this investigation , most likely the U.S. govt.who do know the answers I am sure , obviously have no feelings whatsoever for the grieving families of the innocent victims. This is shameful and cannot be excused and proves they must be psychopaths.

  13. Joe B
    June 6, 2016 at 7:06 am

    It would be careless to ignore the fact that MH17 was full of gays bound for a convention in Malaysia, and that the loss was instantly ascribed without evidence for political purposes, by the US. The governments very likely had decided that the passengers were expendable in a false-flag operation.

    Most likely agencies with right-wing leanings were involved, military and secret agencies. Because Russia would gain nothing, and US agencies would be far more likely to have information about the passengers, it would have to involve secret communications between Ukraine and US agencies. They must have been planning a false-flag operation, worried about any of their own kind among the passengers, and selected that flight due to right-wing leanings.

  14. SingingSam
    June 6, 2016 at 8:33 am

    I’ve searched high and low for a copy of the U. S. “Government Assessment” with no success. Does anyone have a link please?

  15. David Smith
    June 6, 2016 at 10:08 am

    The blunt truth is that the Ukraine shot down MH-17, and not “rogue elements” but ordered by the Kiev government to blame innocent parties. However the true shape of The Big Lie is only now beginning to emerge. First Stage: Donbass Rebels used a stolen Ukrainian BUK. Stage Two: Donbass Rebels used a Russian supplied BUK. We have heard snarky hints of Stage Three which will soon be openly screeched: Russian Army personnel(swilling vodka of course) used a Russian BUK to shoot down MH-17. Not only that, but Putin ordered the drunks to shoot down MH-17, then he bragged about it(shirtless of course)……..

  16. Jim
    June 6, 2016 at 11:14 am

    DONETSK, June 29, /ITAR-TASS/. Self-defence forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic have taken control over a missile defence army unit equipped with Buk missile defence systems, the press service of the Donetsk People’s Republic told Itar-Tass on Sunday.
    So far, no details are available about the number and condition of the missile systems taken over by the self-defence forces. The press service refused to comment.
    The Buk missile defence system is a mobile medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system designed to defend field troops and logistics installations against air threats in conditions of heavy electronic countermeasures and intense enemy fire.

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/world/738262

  17. Abe
    June 6, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    It is known that there were three US satellites overhead the Donbass region at the material time. They had the undoubted capability of determining exactly what was fired at MH17, from precisely where, and by whom. US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed as much in an interview with NBC shortly after the tragedy.

    The American refusal to publically release the data leads to the very strong inference that it is being concealed for the reason that it does not support the “blame Russia” meme so favoured by the western media.

    The incuriosity of the Australian media was again on display when they gave extensive coverage to the report of the alleged claim being filed in the ECHR […]

    The overwhelming weight of evidence is that only the military units of the Ukrainian armed forces had the means, motive and opportunity to shoot down MH17.

    As a recently joined member of Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s “advisory council” former Prime Minister Tony Abbott would be in a difficult position if the shoot down was declared to be a terrorist act and the JIT investigation put the blame where it rightly belongs, on the Ukrainian government. It is not surprising that the announcement at the recent ASEAN-Russia meeting that Malaysia and Russia were cooperating in an investigation of the MH17 tragedy caused concern in US and Ukrainian circles. (5)

    Although the current Australian Prime Minister Turnbull has been more circumspect than his predecessor in making ill-conceived allegations against Russia and its President, he will not wish to expose himself to a finding by the JIT that does not fit the propaganda meme so assiduously pursued by the western media.

    MH17: The Continuing Charade
    By James ONeill
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/05/31/mh17-the-continuing-charade/

    • M
      June 7, 2016 at 1:27 pm

      “The 10-day NATO exercise code named «BREEZE 2014» has ended in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance.

      The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved «commercial traffic monitoring». Because of the sophistication of the electronic warfare and intelligence used during SEA BREEZE, it can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17.”
      http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/07/21/mh-17-beware-of-the-chameleon.html

  18. SingingSam
    June 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    The JIT has made the “e-zine” available to the public, which means that everyone in the JIT approved the contents.

    https://www.om.nl/mh17-ezine-juni2016/e-zine-en.html (English version)

  19. Joe L.
    June 6, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The MH-17 investigation has been a farce from the beginning and I am pretty sure that I already know what it will say. It’s really atrocious that a “possible” party to the shoot-down of MH-17 is part of the investigation let alone providing much of the intelligence data along with having veto power over any information in the report – it would also have been wrong if Russia or the rebels also had so much control over the investigation so I think there should have been a BRICS member like India along with a possible European country investigating this together. To me it is like a cop that “possibly” shot someone in a gang fight being the one to do the investigation of the shooting. Also, should we not forget the article in Der Spiegel where German Intelligence, the BND, blamed the rebels for the shoot-down of MH-17 but also stated that “photos provided by the Ukrainian Government of MH-17 have been manipulated”? But I am sure that the MSM will not report that Ukraine is a “possible” party to the shoot-down, has veto power, and was accused of manipulating MH-17 photos by German Intelligence when it reports on the findings which will say that it was the rebels in Eastern Ukraine with Russia’s backing. Maybe some of the investigators will break from the ranks and provide their own narratives contrary to the report but overall this report will be an “all roads lead to Russia” ordeal – gotta keep those sanctions going and we need to get TTIP passed so we can’t have a united Europe or even a friendly one.

  20. Danielvr
    June 7, 2016 at 1:52 am

    just in: Major Dutch daily De Telegraaf reports that the Swiss authorities have opened a bank vault belonging to Josef Resch, the German private eye who, on behalf of an anonymous client, paid out 17 million euros to informants in the MH-17 case. A Swiss judge has yet to decide if the contents, a supposedly ‘explosive’ report on MH-17, will be handed over to the Dutch judicial authorities.

    Source: http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/25947147/__Bankkluis_MH17_geopend__.html

  21. Eddy
    June 7, 2016 at 2:27 am

    As an Australian myself, being knowledgeble on how our System works here in Australia, I confess I have abosolutely no confidence whatever in this investigation, or our Australian representative.
    Let’s face it, should this representative discover any information leading to the current illegal Government or it’s various militias being responsible for this crime, would that investigator openly submit said revelations to his masters in Canberra, who would then squash the whole thing and demand the investigator’s silence for ever on the issue. Sadly, that is the World we live in today. Lives simply do not matter one iota.

  22. Greg Bacon
    June 9, 2016 at 6:10 am

    Did they find out why the Kiev ATC tower told MH17 to change its route 200 km North and fly over the conflict zone?

Comments are closed.