What about the A.D. 2023 Smolensk investigation? It's getting interesting

The Smolensk investigation was further extended. This.
together until October 10, 2023. Since April 2016, it has been handled by the National Prosecutor's Office's Investigation squad Number 1. His work, at the moment, is supervised by Deputy lawyer General Dariusz Barski. He took the place of the deceased on March 31, 2022 prosecutor Mark Pasionek.
In 2020, squad 1 PK investigators appointed 16 experts from Denmark, France, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland and Italy "in order to carry out an examination and open exhumed bodies of 83 victims of the disaster, analyse medical records of all victims and issue preliminary, supplementary and final opinions". These are, according to the National Prosecutor's Office, “world-famous aviation accident investigation experts. They are to warrant the reliability and professionalism of the investigation". Their vocation "caused an investigation into the key phase".
On 20 September 2022, they ran from the global forensics squad issued a final opinion. It was not published.
On the another hand, they were acquainted with it, which is obvious, members of investigation squad No. 1 PK. But not all the materials contained in the expert opinion were clear and clear to them. Therefore, on behalf of the full team, prosecutor Michał Przybyłowski, in November 2022, again asked experts in the field of forensic medicine to explain. 1 of the 5 questions that a squad of our prosecutors addressed to experts contained a fragment of their final opinion. It reads: "In no case has the opinions indicated any injury or another medical features whose nature would in itself be the basis for akin to the hypothesis of fast energy release of explosive or flammable materials." Our prosecutors wanted to find whether this message of experts refers to all opinions (also preliminary and complementary) issued and analysed by an global squad of experts.
TVN journalists came to the conclusion that there was no detonation on board the tuple.
The National Prosecutor's Office at a press conference, after the commercial tv broadcast, stated that it was her question to experts (called a resolution to issue a supplementary opinion) that is justified and TVN journalists' request prematurely, as in erstwhile partial opinions of experts "in respective cases they did not regulation out the hypothesis of fast liberation of energy of the nature of explosion".

Probably 1 of these preliminary opinions quotes, arguing with TVN materials, Antoni Macierewicz. It reads: "The degree of dismemberment of the body, as well as the presence of abroad bodies within exhumed remains, makes it impossible to exclude the hypothesis of fast liberation of energy of the nature of explosion".
This is, as I suppose, based on the phrase: "it makes it impossible to exclude hypothesis" an first opinion. It has working thesis features. However, the final opinion of forensic experts is clear: "in no case... has it indicated... injuries or another medical features whose nature... would form the basis for akin to the hypothesis of fast energy liberation".

It so appears that this PK question was formulated only to guarantee that the preliminary opinions were definitively verified and excluded by experts. It was expected to put a dot on an "i." This closing opinion is already known to the prosecutor's team. It was after receiving it that squad No. 1 PK extended the investigation.

However, writer Marek Pyza (inPolitics) questioned the subject of the survey of an global squad of forensic specialists. In his opinion, “the runners did not examine all the bodies. Their opinion concerns 83 disaster victims, and thus remains an open question of injury to the remaining 13 victims."

Actually, the forensics didn't examine 9 bodies. 4 couldn't due to the fact that they were cremated. It is about Jerzy Szmajdziński, Isabella Jaruga - Nowacka, Czesław Cywiński and Adam Pilch. On the another hand, these 9 bodies were exhumed, mainly at the request of families, starting in 2012, and there were no injuries or medical features which would indicate that there was an explosion. In the authoritative communication of the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office, after the exhumation and examination of the first of the victims are specified words:
“The deceased could have died at the time of the crash, immediately after suffering extended injury... The experts' conclusions let for a clear exclusion that the mechanics of injury to the body of Zbigniew Wassermann was related to the effects of pyrotechnic materials, advanced temperature or akin factors."
The message after the exhumation and examination of the next 2 bodies, was already more lapidical: "Polish experts stated that the injuries to both victims (Janusz Kurtyki and Przemysław Gosiewski - RM) are characteristic of the aviation crash (PAP)". However, he came to the same conclusion. In subsequent exhumations, the messages are even more residual and inform that expert opinions were made available only to the families of the victims.
In my opinion, if 1 of the opinions concerning the examination of the another bodies were to find information about even a tiny probability of influencing any pyrotechnic material, the substance would be made public by families who had access to expert opinions. Especially since they had constant contact with sub-committee Antoni Macierewicz, who since 2011 focused solely on proving 1 theory: an detonation in the air PLF 101.

But in order to guarantee that there is no uncertainty about the discovery of traces of TNT on the bodies of 9 victims, I quote a passage from the decision to accept evidence from the expert opinion that PK issued on October 7, 2016: "The War territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw sought the opinion of the expert Central Crime laboratory of the Police Headquarters, in order to examine for the presence of explosives samples of biological material taken from bodies exhumed earlier to the victims, as well as evidence collected by experts during the actions carried out at the site of the plane crash and storage. The experts ruled out the detonation of explosives on board the aircraft." However, as squad No. 1 PK had doubts about the results obtained by the Central laboratory of Police KG, he decided to exhume the remaining bodies and samples, among others, to hand over to the squad of forensics experts.

That would be 1 side of the medal.

On the another hand, the question is: why did prosecutors have specified strong doubts about the results of the work of the Central Crime Laboratory, and why do they have specified a deep belief that at least microscopic traces of pyrotechnics should be found on the bodies? This is explained by this passage of the provision on the appointment of experts: "The main object of uncertainty and long-term polemics was the examination of samples secured on the seats of the Tu 154 M aircraft, which suffered, a disaster" on which "in the test process specialized devices signalled alerts characteristic of the detection of chemical compounds belonging to the TNT (trotyl)". In a word, the prosecutor's squad was tired of asking why the pyrotechnic marks were on the passenger seats and not on their bodies anymore?

There are many testimonies indicating that the results of medical and forensic experts argue with the results of experts with mechanical specialisation. I have cognitive dissonance erstwhile I put it together with Dr. hab's work. Jack Wójcik, an expert in mechanoscopy, who, in November 2021, in the diary of Forensic Sciences published by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, in an article "Mass spectrometry of the soot left after ethylene oxide detonation any questions on the crash of Polish Air Force Flight 101" ("Mass mass spectrometry of the soot remaining after the detonation of ethylene oxide responds to questions about plane crash No. 101 of the Polish Air Force") stated that the longitudinal hull teardrop indicates that it was destroyed by an interior explosion. A number of facts besides support the thermobaric explosion, which is that first a flammable agent is sprayed in the area and then an detonation of this agent occurs throughout the room. Hence this longitudinal hull teardrop and blow from its interior of passengers, together with the breaking of their clothes "which is possible only as a consequence of force waves and vacuums characteristic of a thermobaric explosion" reads an article in "in Politics".
Here besides we have a situation akin to the seats. The remains of the wreck show mechanical features of the blast, and the remains of the victims no longer. It's like the plane itself was subject to explosives, but no longer the body of its passengers. Is there any explanation for this?
A 400-page study by Polish archaeologists from October 2010 besides supports the ship's explosion. Scientists have found that it has broken into at least 30,000 elements. Of which - "10 000 remains were secured, and the remaining 20 000 were detected by a metallic detector, at a depth of up to 20 cm in the ground". specified a large number of tiny elements could not have been created by hitting trees and earth. There are any analogies with Boeing 747 that crashed over Scottish Lockerbie in 1988 as a consequence of the bombing. This 1 fell into about 10,000 fragments.

While they have already issued their final decisions, they may inactive be working, a squad of physicochemical experts. However, erstwhile all the groups have submitted their final opinions, the global expert squad will meet to issue a comprehensive opinion, which will issue a comprehensive final opinion, as the body's name suggests. And it is only on the basis of the second that PK will decide what to do next - to drop the investigation, suspend or mention the indictment to court. And against who?

At any rate, for the present time, the situation is that while the examination of the forensic medicine squad seems to undermine the hypothesis formulated by the Smolensk subcommittee Antoni Macierewicz, the mechanoscopy and partially physicochemical results would indicate that the thesis of the Commission for the Investigation of Aviation Accidents of Jerzy Miller.
Could both teams have been wrong?



Bibliography:
]]>https://tvn24.pl/polska/catastrofa-w-Smolensk-international-polic-w-c...]]>
]]>https://nielezna.pl/467227-antoni-macierewicz-reply-on-manipulation...]]>
]]>https://www.polityka.pl/weekly-policy/socialism/1771100,1,gry-gro...]]>
]]>https://www.fakt.pl/politics/Presidential-airplane-split-sie-on-20-thousand...]]>
]]>https://www.rp.pl/law-karne/art37550831-none-slawow-explosion-in-smolensk...]]>
]]>https://polskieradio24.pl/5/1222/article/3081911,macierevic-reply-t...]]>
]]>https://wpolitics.pl/smolensk/575376-prof-vitamins-cause-broken...]]>
]]>https://wpoliticy.pl/smolensk/566083-only-u-us-scap-re-re-re-re-do-rapore...]]>
]]>https://polskieradio24.pl/5/1222/Articul/2408199, Prosecution-takes over-T...]]>
]]>https://wpolitics.pl/smolensk/569518-last-simple-target-review...]]>
]]>https://www.rp.pl/events/art6341181-npw-ws-section-z-wassermann]]>
]]>https://news.onet.pl/only-in-onet/another-change-cial-exhumacj...]]>
]]>https://wpolitics.pl/smolensk/624979- lies-about-1004-maja-juz-we-blood-what...]]>
]]>https://www.salon24.pl/u/stanzag/733741,time-document-exhumations]]>
]]>https://10iv2010.blogspot.com/2016/10/first-unofficial-conference....]]>