“The time has come to say 'Stop' and start again with the help of international experts,” says Attorney Małgorzata Wasserman
SCND April 12, 2015
Malgorzata Wasserman PHOTO by PAP
WPolityce.pl: The excerpt of the transcript recently published by RMF FM has attracted a lot of media attention. It confirmed the theories repeated over the years, about the pressure put on pilots and their responsibility for the crash. The government commission insists that the published materials are in agreement with the outcomes of its investigation. We still have no confirmation if explosives were used to cause the crash and we still don’t know if the victims’ bodies bear any traces of explosion. There are no other key materials or information. Therefore, what should be our stand on the newly published excerpt?
Attorney Małgorzata Wassermann: I feel confused and unable to judge which opinion can be trusted and which transcript is reliable. It seems incredible that copies of the same recording and their interpretation should differ so much. I think that things have now gone too far and it is time to say “stop.” We should start again with the help of international experts that will guarantee an independent and impartial investigation.
You mention the copies being different. The media consider the latest one a breakthrough. Is that the case?
I can’t see it being a breakthrough. For me, the excerpt published in the internet does not change in any way the course of the Smolensk crash and it has no impact on its analysis. Experts have already begun to question the evidential value of the excerpt and have indicated that the transcript provides no grounds for any credible results. The excerpt does not affect the facts, such as the location of the wreckage, the lack of a crater in the ground at the location of the crash, the dispersion of the aircraft’s parts and the nature of their deformation, as well as the way the aircraft was damaged. The main theories and doubts contradicting Dr. Lasek’s theory of how the crash occurred have been in no way affected by the newly published excerpt.
The Polish prosecutors and media keep referring to General Anodina’s theories and MAK report, but in Germany, Jürgen Roth, whose book about the Smolensk crash has been published, suggests that the crash was an act of assassination, organised by FSB (the Russian Federal Security Service). What is your opinion on his theory?
Jürgen Roth’s book is a chance to make the world realise that reports by MAK and General Anodina are not based on the truth. Events such as the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner and the war in Ukraine seem to have already made other countries more willing to support us, because those countries are aware that the Smolensk crash is still not clear and has not been explained. I truly hope that Mr. Roth’s book and similar works will eventually result in changing perceptions and raising awareness that will provide us with international support.
At UKSW conference on Smolensk crash you said that you felt let down by the judiciary system, which did not react when basic procedures were breached during the crash investigation. Who is responsible for this breach of standards in the investigation?
It is a difficult question, because we have no way of checking who delayed the fulfilment of procedures or allowed them to stay unfulfilled. It is not possible either to ask Mr. Lasek about the procedures he followed. I would like to remind that after the crash, aviation law was changed and that provided the government commission with an option to avoid answering any questions. They chose to use that option in June 2010, and that should not have been allowed; the law in place at the time of the crash should have been followed. The law is not retroactive. Dr. Lasek should be deposed and he should disclose information about all analyses allegedly carried out by the Miller Commission.
The trip to Smolensk was expected to highlight Russia finally admitting culpability in the massacre, after long having blamed it on the Germans, an atrocity they had tried to conceal for over 70 years.
As for the reception committee, it had different ideas. Putin wasn’t looking forward to such an occasion. Into this poisonous reception brew was President Kaczynski’s well-known public criticism of Moscow and Putin, a habit that has ended the lives of others within Russia – and abroad. A few discouraging Russian requirements – that Kaczynski could not attend in any official capacity – did not halt the Poles. Kaczynski would go anyway on non-official, “personal” business. To Russians, such a distinction would be meaningless, not lessening the possible international excoriation of such an event. A problem ripe for a modern, Russian solution: a tragic, ‘natural’ accident.
World-renowned forensic pathologist goes on the record: "I have been doing autopsies for 50 years, and I've investigated more than fifteen, twenty airplane crashes […] I've been in countries all over the world where families think that the government is hiding something. Whether it is Zimbabwe or Israel, or Philippines, the government may not like an outside person checking to make sure they got it right. [But,] they never interfered with that. The family, the next of kin, always has the right to do what the wishes of the family are. In the 21st century, the body of the dead person no longer belongs to the state. It belongs to the family. So, it is unusual - something that I have never experienced before - where the government [of Poland] has not permitted the famil[ies]" to conduct independent forensic examinations of their loved ones' remains [...] I've never heard of a body coming back to a country and the family being unable to open up a casket. I've never heard of the family not being able to get an autopsy… Read more here
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views the SmolenskCrashNews.com. All information is provided on an as-is basis, and all data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Smolensk Crash News DOT COM makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.