back to top

    New manipulation concerning Smolensk crash

    “International experts: in the bodies of the victims of the Smolensk catastrophe there are no injuries indicating an explosion,” the title of an article on tvn24.pl says. But the findings of the station, which specialises in Smolensk lies, are an example of yet another manipulation. The author of the most recent ‘news’ is Piotr Swierczek, who was behind the infamous material revealing the alleged argument between General Błasik and Captain Protasiuk. 

    Swierczek also received a journalistic award in 2018 from a magazine published by Tomasz Hypki, who blamed the shooting down of a Malaysian Boeing in 2014 by the Russians on Ukraine.

    The tvn24.pl portal ‘reached’ information on the alleged conclusions of the international team of experts to investigate the causes of the Smolensk crash, appointed by the National Prosecutor’s Office. Information about them was said to be contained in the decision of prosecutor Michał Przybyłowski of November 24, concerning the admission of ‘evidence from a complementary opinion of forensic experts.’

    One of the questions, prosecutor Przybyłowski asks for clarification as to whether the position of the experts proclaiming that “in no case did the opinions indicate the presence of any injuries or other medical features, the nature of which would in itself constitute grounds for making probable the hypothesis of a violent release of energy of the nature of an explosion of explosives or flammable materials,” refers to all the preliminary and supplementary opinions issued and analysed by the international team of experts.

    “Thus, it follows from the quoted excerpt that the conclusion of the expert team indicated that there was no explosion on board the Tu-154 aircraft in Smolensk,” the tvn24.pl portal concludes.

    Let’s start with the first manipulation. The experts’ conclusion, which by the way is not yet ‘final,’ does not prove at all ‘that there was no explosion on board Tu-154,’ as TVN24 says. The forensic experts are not experts in explosions, air crashes or analysis of the destruction of the plane and they did not judge this case. They only pointed out that in the fragments of the bodies they examined, they did not find injuries whose nature “in itself” would DIRECTLY indicate an explosion. It is as if the information about the absence of the suspect’s fingerprints on the murder weapon were converted into a message: the murder did not take place.

    This brings us to manipulation number two. The experts examined only a few parts of the bodies and have not yet commented on the documentation concerning the others at all – contrary to what TVN already suggests in the title. This is evidenced by a fragment of the quoted document, passed over in silence by TVN24.pl. For, as the Niezalezna.pl portal established, the prosecutor Przybyłowski also asked experts to “answer the question whether the data, contained in the documentation made available to the experts, concerning the bodies and human remains of the victims of the Tu-154 crash No. 101, NOT SUBJECT TO [editor’s emphasis] post-exhumation investigations carried out by the International Team of Experts,” indicate an explosion.

    Thirdly, TVN24.pl did not say a word about the fact that forensic experts’ examinations – carried out, incidentally, on remains that have only been exhumed since 2012 – should be considered in the broader context of the decomposition of the remains on the wreckage, etc.

    Thus, the indisputable evidence of an explosion – i.e., elements of internal organs (e.g., a trachea with bronchial fragments, a piece of intestine, a femur) that were already there before the traces of the first impact of Tu-154 on the ground – examined without taking into account where they were found, under the forensic medics’ microscope are simply fragmented pieces of the body. Just as an overburnt corpse – found in an area where there was no fire – makes an explosion plausible, although not for a forensic expert from Portugal or Denmark who has no idea where they were.

    Let us recall, more than a third of the victims of the Smolensk disaster bore traces of multiple and severe burns, most of which were found outside the area of the ground fire, even at a distance of more than 50 metres. A very large number were found to have foreign bodies embedded in their bodies – shards of plating, glass and even fragments of a steel bearing. The bodies of the passengers of the so-called third lounge were scattered over the entire wreckage, i.e., over 100 metres! Although, according to the official version, the plane fell from barely a dozen metres onto a damp, muddy surface.

    And the most important thing. In front of the traces of the first impact of the Tu-154 on the ground, apart from the mentioned parts of internal organs, there were found torn remains of the upper parts of the bodies and fragments of limbs – and these were only of the victims who had been in the kitchen, lounge 3 and the passenger compartment during the flight. These are the middle and rear parts of the aircraft. TVN24 did not mention this either, of course.

    The least surprising thing about TVN’s manipulation is that the station’s ‘revelations’ appear immediately after the discrediting of the opposition, which blocked a resolution recognising Russia as a sponsor of terrorism under the pretext of an amendment by Antoni Macierewicz. This is because the Law and Justice politician wanted the resolution to indicate the direct responsibility of the Russian Federation for the crash of the Tu-154 M plane in Smolensk. A few months ago, TVN attacked Macierewicz with a report on Smolensk, just at the time when the subcommittee asked Russia to return the wreckage of the Tupolev. 

    The author of both that report and the most recent ‘news’ about international experts is Piotr Swierczek. As revealed by ‘Gazeta Polska,’ he was the one behind the infamous material ‘revealing’ the alleged argument between General Błasik and Captain Protasiuk, and he was also the one who, in 2016, branded the report dedicated to the Smolensk catastrophe, in which journalist Jan Osiecki, who supported Anodina’s theories on Russian television, spoke out. Swierczek also received a journalist award in 2018 from a magazine published by Tomasz Hypki, who blamed the shooting down of a Malaysian Boeing in 2014 by the Russians on Ukraine.

    More in section

    2,225FansLike
    359FollowersFollow
    1,164FollowersFollow