EXCLUSIVE

FOR the shattered family of young Australian Malaysian Airlines MH17 victim, Jack O’Brien, the imminent release of the final report on the 2014 disaster serves as an opportunity to at last get some clear facts.

Distressed and offended by the often ludicrous theories churned out daily on the worldwide web, the O’Briens see the Dutch Safety Board report as “something more substantial to hold on to”.

“While every day for us involves managing our distress and disbelief at Jack not being here, we can still feel ourselves getting anxious as the release of the report approaches,” say Meryn, Jon and (daughter) Bronwyn O’Brien.

“We know it won’t change anything but we still want to know what happened.

“We have confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of the DSR investigation.”

NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN FOOTAGE: Russian rebels at MH17 wreckage

MH17 DOWNED: Moment Russian rebels realise momentous mistake

Due for public release on Tuesday night Australian time, the report will not attempt to lay blame for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines’ flight over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

That is the role of the Joint Investigation Team which continues to work to find those responsible for the deaths of all 298 passengers and crew — amid the chaos of civil war and resistance from Russia.

Despite blistering attacks on Russia led by Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, attempts to establish an international criminal tribunal to prosecute those at fault have so far failed.

Her efforts have not gone unnoticed though, with families grateful for her courageous attempts to bring Russia to account.

In the eyes of Peter Bell, father of young Northern Territory teacher Emma, Bishop’s speech to the United Nations Security Council in which she condemned Russia’s veto of the tribunal, was “absolutely marvellous”.

“I’m impressed with everything Julie Bishop has done to date, in that she just keeps fighting against the strength and power of the Russians,” says Bell.

“At the same time, she’s just a beautiful person and so compassionate.”

What the Dutch report will say is what caused the plane to come down, what sort of device was used, and to what extent those on board were conscious of the crash.

The report will also tackle the issue of flying over conflict areas, which in the absence of a clear perpetrator, has been the focus of much of the anger of the next of kin.

Three days before the disaster, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister reportedly issued an explicit warning that airspace above the war zone was dangerous for aircraft.

Several families have since launched lawsuits against government officials in the Netherlands and Ukraine for what they see as “negligent behaviour” in approving the MH17 flight plan over the region, and failing to close the airspace.

Others are still contemplating legal action although the two-year window for lawsuits is rapidly closing.

The eldest son of Toowoomba couple Roger and Jill Guard, Paul, says he did hold Malaysia Airlines “at least partly responsible” for the tragedy.

“The advice we’ve had is they can’t prove they weren’t negligent, because there is some negligence involved in flying in an area where they knew there was a conflict going on,” says Guard.

“But I’d prefer to focus on the positives that can come out of it, rather than seek vengeance or retribution.”

Already some changes have been made to aviation regulation, in direct response to the MH17 disaster.

There is now a “conflict zone” section on the International Civil Aviation Organisation website carrying notices to aviators (NOTAMs) about those areas.

One of the more difficult parts of the report for families, is the analysis of how conscious those on board were aware of what was happening,

The Dutch Safety Board expanded its investigation to explore that angle, following the revelation one passenger was found with remnants of an oxygen mask.

Various experts have contributed their views over the last 15-months in a debate that has been distressing and harrowing for the families.

The O’Briens say they are “acutely conscious” of this aspect of the report.

“Did our beloved son and brother know that his life was ending, know that all his hopes and dreams would never be realised, know in an instant that he would never see the people he most cared about?” says Jack’s family.

“We are drawn to contemplate these things and at the same time we find it unbearably distressing and harrowing.”

Guard says his family received advice “early on” from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and subsequently the coroner, that it was unlikely those on board would’ve realised what was happening.

“I’m happy with that,” he says.

“I don’t think I need to think about that any more, given it was an explosive decompression. I can understand there were significant G-forces, I assume it was very quick.

“I prefer to think of the whole thing as a bit of a cremation in the sky, if you like.”

Another family, who did not wish to go on the record ahead of the report’s release spoke of the distress the investigation was likely to bring many next of kin.

“I think it’s unnecessary, it won’t bring anyone back,” said the family.

“We were fortunate in some ways, that our loved ones were found intact. That wasn’t the case for many others.”

As intently as families are anticipating the report, some question what it will actually achieve.

Bell expects it will confirm what they already know about “how the plane came down” and the circumstances leading up to that.

The O’Briens are also acutely aware that there may be “no definitive answers”.

“And ultimately what difference does it make?” they ask.

“Jack is still not here.”