Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list

Was Slobodan Milosevic murdered?

Historical and Investigative Research - 14 March 2006
by Francisco Gil-White



The former president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, was found dead in his cell on Saturday. That very day, Deutsche Presse Agentur reported:

“Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell in the Scheveningen detention unit near The Hague Saturday morning, the UN war crimes tribunal said.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) said Milosevic, 64, had been found ‘lifeless’ shortly after 9.00 a.m. It gave no cause of death, but said an inquiry had been launched.”[1]

The Daily Telegraph reports that some in the Milosevic camp have been alleging that the cause of death was homicide: Milosevic, his supporters claim, was murdered at The Hague.[2]

Does the murder hypothesis make sense?

In order to answer that question, we must first be clear on something. If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO. Why NATO? Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO.[3] This helps explain why NATO appoints the prosecutors,[4] and why the Hague Tribunal ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO.[5] It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO.

Now, since the accusation that Milosevic was murdered is an accusation against NATO, we must ask -- as one would in a US court of law -- whether NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him. The question of opportunity does not require a special demonstration: Slobodan Milosevic was NATO’s prisoner, so NATO clearly had opportunity.

Did NATO have motive?

Anybody who has followed the trial proceedings at the Hague Tribunal knows that NATO failed utterly in supporting its case against Slobodan Milosevic, despite tilting the entire structure and procedure of the trial against the defense in a manner that beggars description.[6] The reasons for this are not far to seek. As HIR has demonstrated multiple times, the accusations against the Serbs -- for which Slobodan Milosevic was standing trial -- are lies. For example, though NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak, this turned out to be a hoax.[7] This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999. But it pales next to this embarrassment: after claiming that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians (or else 500,000), NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces.[8] The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up a genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while NATO was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But HIR has shown these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.[9] Without any bodies, how was NATO to make a case against Milosevic in Kosovo? They brought Patrick Ball to talk confusedly about statistics of refugee movements streaming out of Kosovo, from which Ball pretended to ‘infer’ that there had supposedly been massacres by the Serbs against Albanian civilians, quite despite the fact that Patrick Ball’s own data called for a different conclusion.[10] None of this should be terribly surprising for those who know that, contrary to the accusations against the Serbs all over the media, and which helped convince the public that the NATO assault was just, the Kosovo Albanians were the best treated minority in the world, bar none.[11] Consistent with this, the accusations against the Bosnian Serbs -- also lumped together in the case against Milosevic -- were similarly lies.[12]

From the above it follows that NATO’s Hague Tribunal is a kangaroo court whose purpose is to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since, despite cheating all over the place, NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic: preventing his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody will be the wiser, because the controlled media will continue to say this.

From the point of view of this hypothesis Milosevic did indeed die just at the right time, for, as The Washington Post explains:

“Court officials had said they had expected his trial to conclude in May and judges to issue a verdict by the end of the year.”[13]

In other words, Milosevic died shortly before the Hague Tribunal, under the law, would have been forced to pronounce him ‘not guilty.’ Convenient, for NATO.

But there is something else to consider: there is precedent.

HIR has published an investigation that leaves little room for doubt that Slavko Dokmanovic, a Serb fraudulently accused of committing atrocities against civilian Croats, was murdered in the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison two weeks before his expected acquittal.

HIR invites you to read this investigation, which helps place in a more complete context the accusation that Slobodan Milosevic was murdered in prison.

“MURDER AT THE HAGUE? An investigation into the alleged suicide of Slavko Dokmanovic”; Historical and Investigative Research; 11 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

In closing, allow me to make something clear. Though I have shown that the accusations of war crimes against Slobodan Milosevic are false, he was nevertheless guilty, as president of Yugoslavia and Serbia, of not properly defending the Serbs, helping cause the death of many, many innocent people. In this he resembles Ariel Sharon, and other Israeli leaders, who have been guilty of sabotaging the defense of the Israeli Jews. The two cases have many parallels.


Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Deutsche Presse-Agentur, March 11, 2006, Saturday, Politics, 329 words, 4TH LEAD: Hague tribunal confirms Milosevic death, inquiry started, The Hague/Belgrade

[2] Milosevic voiced fears that he was being poisoned,  The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), March 13, 2006 Monday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 399 words, Neil Tweedie in The Hague


“THE United Nations was under pressure last night to clarify the circumstances surrounding the death of Slobodan Milosevic following claims that he feared he was being poisoned.

Preliminary results of a post mortem examination showed that he died of a heart attack, according to a statement by the United Nations war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

The autopsy was carried out amid suspicions that Milosevic, who had heart problems, had been poisoned or took his own life before he was found dead in his cell on Saturday.

Lawyers representing Milosevic produced a letter said to be from the former president of Yugoslavia to the Russian embassy in the Netherlands expressing his belief that he was being poisoned in order to silence him.

The marathon four-year trial of the man who presided over three brutal wars in the Balkans in the 1990s was due to end at the tribunal in The Hague later this year.

Zdenko Tomanovic, one of the Belgrade lawyers who assisted Milosevic during his trial for war crimes, said his 64-year-old client was worried about traces of drugs in his bloodstream apparently used only to treat leprosy and tuberculosis.

The letter was allegedly sent on Friday, shortly before Milosevic died at the UN prison in Scheveningen. According to a report on the Dutch public television station NOS, the drugs, said to neutralise medicines intended to treat Milosevic’s chronic heart complaint and hypertension, were discovered earlier this year.

Dutch doctors, the report said, ordered the tests to find out why his medicines were not working satisfactorily.

Steven Kay QC, the British barrister appointed to assist Milosevic as his health failed, told The Daily Telegraph that Milosevic knew that he was gambling with his life by insisting on presenting his own defence case.

He was worried that UN doctors were not doing enough to treat his illness.

Mr Kay also criticised the length and complexity of the trial, saying the decision of UN prosecutors, led by Carla Del Ponte, to try Milosevic jointly for alleged genocide and other war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo had resulted in a completely unmanageable process.

Miss Del Ponte refused to rule out suicide as a cause of death yesterday, but said the world would have to await the results of the Dutch autopsy. She defended her policy of seeking a conviction for all three wars.

Milosevic’s body will be released to his family today.”

[3] "Official Statements Prove Hague 'Tribunal' Belongs To NATO"; Emperor’s Clothes; 30 June 2001; by Jared Israel

[4] "Madeleine Albright [at the time US Secretary of State]...eager for war in Kosovo... hand-picked Canada's Louise Arbour to be [ICTY -- Hague Tribunal] war crimes prosecutor, who had no experience with the Balkans and tended to believe every atrocity claimed by the Muslims."

SOURCE: The Ottawa Sun, April 15, 2001 Sunday, Final Edition, Comment;, Pg. C4;, 868 words, "Keeping Peace, Making War; Documentary Argues That If Nato Had Stayed Out Of The Kosovo Conflict, The Balkan People Would Have Been Better Off," Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun, Toronto.

[5] On 13 June 2000 the Hague Tribunal announced that “no investigation [will] be commenced by the OTP [Office of The Prosecutor] in relation to the NATO bombing campaign.” The key word is “commenced.” The Tribunal was not saying that it had found NATO 'not guilty' of war crimes violations; it said that “no investigation [will] be commenced.” That is, the Tribunal would not ask the question.

SOURCE: Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee established to Review the NATO bombing Campaign Against the FRY, PR/P.I.S./510-E, 13 June 2000
This document may be found in Krieger, H. (2001). The Kosovo conflict and international law: An analytical documentation 1974-1999, Cambridge International Documents Series, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp.340-352).

[6] To see an example of the amazing bias with which court proceedings are conducted at The Hague, see:

"The Judge As Prosecutor: Two Days At The 'Trial' Of Slobodan Milosevic"; Emperor's Clothes; 19 June 2002; by Ian Johnson

[7] "THE ROAD TO JENIN: The Racak 'massacre' hoax, and those whose honesty it places in doubt: Helena Ranta, NATO, the UN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Associated Press, and Human Rights Watch." Historical and Investigative Research; October 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[8] “THE FREEZER TRUCK HOAX: How NATO framed the Serbs”; Historical and Investigative Research; 2 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[9] “THE FREEZER TRUCK HOAX: How NATO framed the Serbs”; Historical and Investigative Research; 2 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[10] “HOW TO LIE WITH (OR WITHOUT) STATISTICS: An examination of Patrick Ball’s indictment of Milosevic; Historical and Investigative Research; 14 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[11] "The Serbs Were Not Oppressing the Kosovo Albanians... Quite the opposite"; Historical and Investigative Research; 14 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[12] “WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[13] Milosevic Found Dead in Prison; Genocide Trial Is Left Without A Final Judgment,  The Washington Post, March 12, 2006 Sunday,  Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1801 words, Molly Moore and Daniel Williams, Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS March 11





































































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list