MH17 crash: Victims' families sue Putin and Russia

originally posted by: Salander
Except that it is based upon a story completely concocted by the western media...

Then if it is 'concocted' the Russians, or whomever, will have a really easy time proving it in court. Right?

a reply to: Salander

Why would the US put all of their evidence out in the public? Once the criminal investigation finished up this will go to trial. If the US released their evidence early it could harm the proceedings and the guilty parties could walk.

That said the available evidence is stacked against the separatists. They even to to Twitter to claim they had downed a plane. They had been shooting down planes in that same area in the preceding weeks. One of their leaders even came out and said they were responsible. Why are you ignoring the facts do easily?

Please though, provide your evidence that clearly shows this was an airborne attack.

a reply to: Salander

Binding or not, many governments like to manipulate the court of public opinion for certain nefarious purposes. The MH17 case is a perfect example.

I would also like to see some sources for this claim. I'm not saying it isn't true, I would just like to see some sources.

a reply to: Salander

The US made the claim the Russians shot it down, and they've never made the case, never even tried, never presented any evidence at all, just hints and allegations.

Except they gave all their evidence to the criminal investigation that is ongoing.

The letter further answers the questions surrounding radar images of the disaster. According to Westerbeke, the Ukraine does not have any radar images.The United States made their data available through secret service MIVD, and the prosecutor will be able to use it as evidence if necessary.

According to Westerbeke, the investigators have an eye on “a large group of people” who may be responsible for the attack. Only once their role in the attack is clear, and depending on where they are, will a decision be made on the most promising form of prosecution. He warns the survivors that the investigation and prosecution can still take a very long time, referring to the Lockerbie crash which took three years before arrest warrants were issued.

www.nltimes.nl...

Try a bit more than just hints and allegations.

Gents:

I hope the US actually can prove its hints and allegations, but I will bet my last dollar that it cannot and will not.

Knowing how the government operates, if it could have proved its story 2 years ago, it would have. But it didn't, and that reinforces its standard behavior--hints and allegations, but never any evidence.

What motives do the Russians have to shoot down a passenger airliner? What advantage was gained? NONE

Based only on hints and allegations, the Russians were punished with sanctions.

It's possible that Malaysia was being punished for the cheek it showed in trying Bush et al in April 2012 for war crimes. It's possible that the Netherlands was being punished for the cheek it showed in criticizing certain Israeli interests. Who really knows, but Russia was punished without any trial.

The manufacturer of the BUK systems has already done tests with a BUK system and an aircraft fuselage. Those tests suggest that IF a BUK system had been used, it was an older model, one no longer in the Russian inventory, but still in the Kiev inventory.

Obviously, any person can believe whatever story he likes, but I know propaganda when I see it, and I was exposed to a huge propaganda effort on western TV media. MH17 was not shot down by the Russians.

originally posted by: Salander
I hope the US actually can prove its hints and allegations..

Have you still not picked up on the fact that this is an Australian lawsuit? The United States does not have to prove anything.

a reply to: Salander

The company that manufactures BUKs are a Russian owned arms manufacturer. Do you really think they're going to say something that condemns their latest client? Especially after seeing what Putin does to companies that piss him off?

Let's also not forget that the model Russia supposedly doesn't own was proudly displayed by them in their Victory Day parade.

If Russia or the separatists are so innocent why do they keep fabricating b******t claims? The US may not have produced any evidence but they also haven't produced any "evidence."

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Regarding the test conducted and statements made by the Russian manufacturer, it boils down to the digital situation, 1 or 0, truth or fiction. That is, the company either told the truth, or it lied. In my analysis, I consider both options. If they are being truthful, the point is made. If they are being deceptive, nothing really changes.

In the analysis of the entire MH17 saga, there is so much more to consider that the results of that particular test are trivial, to be sure.

The US story from the very start has been a blatant propaganda effort. I know that because I sat in front of my TV on the day it happened, fully exposed to the propaganda effort, and I am old enough to know propaganda when I see it.

Never once has the US offered any evidence to support its claims. Not in the 2 years since it happened, has the US offered anything at all to support its claim.

And within a week or 10 after the event, the Russian government, defending its reputation and the truth, provided radar and other data to assist in any investigation.

I don't know about you, but when one government makes claims and never supports those claims, even as the other government responds within days, I'm suspicious of the claims made, especially as what bit of forensics we got to see early on showed cannon fire and the presence of fighter jets.

So it's a free world we live in--every person can believe as he wishes. I don't believe the US story--it cannot be proved.

a reply to: Salander

The media in the US was guilty of fear mongering (FOX) & sensationalism (FOX, CNN).

They used MH17 to parlay all of the built up suspicion & interest from MH370 into a new aviation disaster story.

What the US media was right about and is still right about is that all evidence both on the ground and the results of long investigations have concluded that it was Russian Separatists armed by Putin that were occupying the region that downed MH17 with a surface-to-air missile.

Those are the facts, dude.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

No dude, those are not really the facts--those are claims, hints and allegations, NONE of which have been proved by those making the claims.

Your repetition of government propaganda, no matter how many times you repeat it, do not make it so.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Have you still not picked up on the fact that this is an Australian lawsuit? The United States does not have to prove anything.

This is incorrect.

The lawsuit was not filed in Australia. It was filed by an Australian law firm, on behalf of the victims from 3 different nations, to the European Court of Human Rights.

That means that any evidence provided will have to be justified by the nation that provided it. US information will have to be justified by the US. Russian information by Russia, etc. If the nation that provided the evidence does not do so, it could be declared inadmissible.

As it stands, right now, unless they have absolute proof that a Russian citizen fired a missile from Russian equipment (not Russian made, but actually owned and operated), they probably aren't going to find much success.

There is a reason Mr. Skinner has been unable to garner much government level support from Australia and the US, and it hinges on the proof of a Russian citizen part. From most reports, it is claimed that the persons responsible for the actual firing were Ukrainian separatists. Doesn't matter that they are trying to separate from Ukraine. What matters is what the international law says about their nationality at the time of the incident, which, per Ukraine's absolute insistence...makes them Ukrainian.

This is an extremely sticky situation, and one the ECHR accepts them as Russian, it could have some very significant ramifications for global powers around the world...US very much included.

It could make any country liable for the actions of non-citizens, based solely on the claims of that non-citizen.

Will be interesting.

a reply to: Salander

I'm saying that it is what the evidence currently suggests. There is no smoking gun, yet. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

originally posted by: peck420
The lawsuit was not filed in Australia. It was filed by an Australian law firm, on behalf of the victims from 3 different nations, to the European Court of Human Rights.

Sweet Jesus and the Baby Jesus.

It was filed by AUSTRALIANS on behalf of other AUSTRALAINS, the United States is not involved. It will be the plaintiff's duty to provide evidence, not the United States.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

I'm quite perplexed by this as well. I really want to know where these folk are getting their info.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Sweet Jesus and the Baby Jesus.

It was filed by AUSTRALIANS on behalf of other AUSTRALAINS, the United States is not involved. It will be the plaintiff's duty to provide evidence, not the United States.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because you are completely unaware of the case, the jurisdiction of the court it was filed in, and the clients involved...it is my reading comprehension?

Sure.

If the plaintiffs use any of the information, as provided by the US government to Mr. Skinner (the lawyer, since it is very obvious you haven't actually read anything about this case), ECHR will be forced to allow a cross examination from the defense (Russia), which will entail (per ERHC rules) the PROVIDER of the information coming to the court. If the provider does not come to the court, the defense will request to have the information deemed inadmissible, to which, the ERHC, will have no choice but to comply (again, per ERHC rules).

The US is in a very hard spot, thanks to an over eager lawyer. If they didn't wish to be in this spot, they should not have given Mr. Skinner, and LHD, permission to use their data. A ship that has already set sail.

But, since you are so well read on this subject, I'm sure you were already well aware of all of this.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
I'm quite perplexed by this as well. I really want to know where these folk are getting their info.

From LHD and Mr. Skinner.

Somebody from the US State Department gave Mr. Skinner/LHD permission to use their data. By doing so, they have inadvertently drawn the US into a ERHC case that they shouldn't be involved in.

Was it most likely an pretty benign mistake? Probably.

That is how most cluster$hits generally start though.

a reply to: peck420

Let me ask you:

Why do you think Russia would doctor satellite photos to push the Ukrainian fighter jet theory? If they have nothing to hide then why engage in blatant lies & disinfo?

a reply to: peck420

The United States is not involved in this case. No one from the Federal government is involved in the suit. The potential calling of a witness does not make this a United States sanctioned or supported lawsuit.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Let me ask you:

Why do you think Russia would doctor satellite photos to push the Ukrainian fighter jet theory? If they have nothing to hide then why engage in blatant lies & disinfo?

Same reason the US, UK, China, heck almost every nation does.

Deny, act surprised, act confused, acceptance, admission, apology.

It is a standard response pattern from those that feel they always have something to hide.

My politicians are no better. Even on things far more trivial than this. Always ends the same too, blow up in their face at some point. Best bet is that it is so ingrained, that it happens before anybody can even put the breaks on it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: peck420

The United States is not involved in this case. No one from the Federal government is involved in the suit. The potential calling of a witness does not make this a United States sanctioned or supported lawsuit.

Feel free to point out where I claimed it was a US sanctioned law suit. Take your time.

Get back to me on that reading comprehension.

Now you know why Mr. Skinner is so disappointed with the Dutch, US, and Australian governments. They all gave him their 'evidence', but none are willing to go to bat on the stand, because...it ain't their lawsuit, why should they? Mr. Skinner assumed (per a different LHD member, that is representing a person against me) that consent to use the data was also acceptance to comply with ERHC rules. That was a pretty colossal mistake on his part, in my personal opinion.