War Criminal Dies Of Cyanide Poisoning... In The Dock.

A very interesting case indeed.
For a myriad of reasons.

The latest update revealed today, is the autopsy results.

www.google.co.uk...

Bosnian Croat war criminal Slobodan Praljak died after taking potassium cyanide in The Hague's courtroom, Dutch prosecutors say, citing the results of a preliminary post mortem examination.

"This has resulted in a failure of the heart, which is indicated as the suspected cause of death," they said.

Praljak drank from a vial after his 20-year term for war crimes in Bosnia in the 1990s had been upheld on Wednesday.

No real loss. Or so it would seem.

Convicted for war crimes, some of the absolute worst ever recorded, you could say he got off easily.
Especially when considering he was only given a measly 20 year sentence.

But it does beg the question...
How?

Dutch authorities are investigating how he smuggled poison into the court.

Of course they are.
Because that is the only option, right?


It’s not like he could have been murdered, to silence him from involving many others across Europe who portray themselves as the bastions of justice.

It’s not like someone could have smuggled it for him, which would be evidence of an infiltration of this shining beacon of international law.



No. He must have smuggled it himself.
& who would question that?
The notion of a coward war criminal taking the easy way out.
It’s far from unbelievable. It’s actually a very realistic possibility.


But unfortunately, it’s all too convenient an excuse for those who are tasked with not only a position of authority that they gave themselves, but have also been very selective in who they charge and what constitutes a war crime throughout their history.



Sadly, we will never find out if others were complicit and/or if there has been an infiltration.
At least not from this monster.

I still say good riddance.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I watched the video on Liveleaks the other day.

It is hard to watch another human being die regardless of what crimes they might have committed. I also wonder how he got the poison. Very curious.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

If he was murdered, wouldn't it be easier to kill him in his cell than the courtroom?

And you are right, death is to good for him.

You never see brutal war criminals from the victorious side on trial.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
It’s not like he could have been murdered, to silence him from involving many others across Europe who portray themselves as the bastions of justice.

Murdered? No, you just have to watch what happened to see that he was not murdered.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
It’s not like he could have been murdered, to silence him from involving many others across Europe who portray themselves as the bastions of justice.

Murdered? No, you just have to watch what happened to see that he was not murdered.

Holy sh*t!

I hadn’t seen that.


It certainly rules out one of my theories.
Thanks for sharing, ArMaP.

a reply to: ArMaP

Murdered? No, you just have to watch what happened to see that he was not murdered.

Anybody address how he got the 'cyanide' ?

"For war crimes against Muslims", lulz.

He saved some pile of money from being drained detaining him for 20 years.

This worked out well. A bottle of cyanide should be put in front of every mass murder in court to let them do what the law can't do in most cases. Drink. Case dismissed.

You make a very good point in the op.

There is so much mixed up in the Bosnian thing, so many angles I wouldn't be surprised if he had the choice between offing himself rather than spill the beans on some important players or watching his family get killed from the telly in his cell.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The same way Hermann Goering got his poison at the Nuremburg Trials. Someone allied with him, or at least sympathetic to the "cause", provided it.

I'd kinda like to see that person, assuming they're still breathing, take his spot in the dock.

a reply to: intrptr

Not that I know.

originally posted by: intrptr

"For war crimes against Muslims", lulz.

"Lulz"? Why?

a reply to: ArMaP

Crimes against humanity, muslims specifically? How guilty is the uS for that?

I chuckled because back then things were different.

We destroy whole nations for 'Oil-amic' extremism.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: intrptr

Not that I know.

mmkay, reminds me, Hitler, Goering and Himmler all took cyanide .

Goering had it in his luggage or it was smuggled to him by his American Liaison officer.

Either way, they beat the hangman, because they knew what they did was criminal.

originally posted by: intrptr
Either way, they beat the hangman, because they knew what they did was criminal.

Not necessarily. It could be just one of those "I'd rather kill myself than allow myself be executed by these hypocrites who believe they have some kind of authority over me and are too stupid to understand what we were fighting for."

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: intrptr
Either way, they beat the hangman, because they knew what they did was criminal.

Not necessarily. It could be just one of those "I'd rather kill myself than allow myself be executed by these hypocrites who believe they have some kind of authority over me and are too stupid to understand what we were fighting for."

They were part of the designed chaos that broke up the country of Yugoslavia after the Warsaw Pact disbanded so the West could go in and colonize the region.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
He saved some pile of money from being drained detaining him for 20 years.

He had already served his sentence. He had been in prison for 15 years and the Hague gives convicts a reduced sentence for good behavior. He would have been set free. He didn't want to be in the situation of being free man but convicted of war crimes.

The situation with Yugoslavia was that they had the same problems as Rotherham in England. So by blowing up bridges they partially stop this problem.

originally posted by: stormcell
The situation with Yugoslavia was that they had the same problems as Rotherham in England. So by blowing up bridges they partially stop this problem.

They weren't convicted of blowing up bridges.