Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 Crashes in Ukraine


The Living Force
SOTT now carries a new installment in the article series by John Helmer in which he reports new developments in the MH17 trial. He strongly criticizes the defense attorneys for not adequately reacting on behalf of their client regarding an interim court ruling about the anonymity of witnesses for the prosecution due to security reasons, and about the status of the evidence they provided via the SBU (Ukrainian Secret Service).

Blind justice, dumb lawyers in the MH17 trial — new Dutch court ruling allows secret witness testimony for the prosecution --

A new ruling by three Dutch judges in the trial of Russia for having shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 will allow the Ukrainian secret service, the SBU, to present fabricated witness evidence without investigation or cross-examination by defense lawyers representing one of the four military officers accused of launching a BUK anti-aircraft missile at MH17. On July 17, 2014, the aircraft was destroyed above eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 people on board.

The two Dutch defense lawyers, Sabine ten Doesschate (lead image, center) and Boudewijn van Eijck (right), have attempted to keep the court proceeding secret since mid-March when they were asked to clarify if they had filed a challenge to the use of secret witness statements in the trial, which began hearings in public on March 9.

A secret hearing followed on April 6 when Ten Doesschate appeared in person. Two weeks later, a 16-page judgment was signed by three judges of the District Court of The Hague, Alexander Boogers, B.W. Mulder, and Mariette Renckens; an official translation into English was then prepared. Ten Doesschate and van Eijck were asked last Thursday morning, April 23, to confirm that the judgment had been issued.

"Should you fail to respond," Ten Doesschate and van Eijck were told, "you will be reported as conducting yourselves in a manner that is inconsistent with the duties of a lawyer in defense of a client in a serious criminal case, with the intention on your parts, individually and collectively, to dissemble, mislead, falsify, and prejudice the defense you claim to represent and for which you are receiving money in payment." Ten Doesschate and van Eijck have refused to answer.

International criminal lawyers who have reviewed the detailed summary of the lawyers' argument in the new court document have condemned Ten Doesschate and van Eijck for their failure to make an adequate defense. They are "sweetheart lawyers working for the prosecution", commented one.

Reviewing the Dutch ruling, Christopher Black, a Canadian attorney who defended in the international war crimes trials for Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, said "the defense in this trial has now been reduced to a fig leaf. From reading this [ruling] and the language [the judges] use, it appears the defense will never have a chance to properly contest the charges. Since they cannot do that, they should walk out, hold a press conference explaining why, and face the consequences."


Other news.
Source: Bellingcat: top KGB commander authorised transfer of MH17 missile -

Bellingcat: top KGB commander authorized transfer of MH17 missile

April 28, 2020

A senior KGB official authorized the transportation of the missile that shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, online investigation agency Bellingcat has claimed.

Bellingcat named the official as Colonel General Andrey Burlaka, the first deputy to the FSB’s chief of border service General Vladimir Kulishov, who answers directly to the director of the FSB, Alexander Bortnikov.

According to Bellingcat, Burlaka was the FSB official known as ‘Vladimir Ivanovich’, who supervised the supply of weapons to pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region during the Ukrainian civil war.

The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team says the BUK missile which brought down the plane on July 17, 2014 was fired from separatist-held territory. Russia has disputed those conclusions and claimed Ukrainian forces were responsible.

Bellingcat studied several partially decrypted phone calls between ‘Vladimir Ivanovich’ and field commanders in Donbas which discussed military operations. In one, Alexander Borodai, the ‘prime minister’ of the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR), said Vladimir Ivanovich had given him a command to ‘eliminate’ a rival faction in the DNR forces.

‘From a number of other calls in the next days, it becomes clear that “Vladimir Ivanovich” was a high-ranking FSB official who, no later than the beginning of July 2014, had been given authority to supervise militants’ operations in Ukraine,’ Bellingcat said.

Voice comparison

Bellingcat identified Burlaka by tracing a mobile phone number for ‘Vladimir Ivanovich Burlak’ listed in JIT documents to a database of hacked text messages, where it matched an entry described as ‘a deputy chief of FSB, whose real name is in fact Andrey’.

A forensic analysis of Vladimir Ivanovich’s voice in the calls matched it with a TV interview with Burlaka broadcast during a documentary aired in June 2018.

The JIT concluded two years ago that the BUK missile that shot down MH17 was transported from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk, Russia.

Bellingcat said that Burlaka’s pivotal role meant that ‘it would be impossible that a large cluster of military equipment — a BUK missile launcher and accompanying vehicles — would have been able to cross the border in the morning hours of 17 July without the direct authorization of “Vladimir Ivanovich”.

‘As a consequence, “Vladimir Ivanovich” would have played a critical role in the chain of command for the deployment of the Buk installation in Ukraine, and thus also for the crime of shooting down MH17.’

Bellingcat report:
Key MH17 Figure Identified As Senior FSB Official: Colonel General Andrey Burlaka - bellingcat

Coverage in Dutch:
Bellingcat identificeert hoge Russische generaal, 'betrokken bij neerhalen MH17'
Bellingcat: Russische generaal geïdentificeerd die toezag op verplaatsen Buk


The Living Force
Archiving the latest from SOTT.

It's an article by Eric van de Beek (Bonanza Media - Mon, 04 May 2020 17:40 UTC) in which he analyzes several inconsistencies around some of the SBU phone taps and the nefarious promotive spin Bellingcat added to them -- much like they recently did again with the above mentioned Andrey Burlaka.
He explains why some of the mentioned people (Igor Nikolaevich Bezler; Oleg Vladimirovich Ivanikov (nickname 'Oreon') and Nikolai Fedorovich Tkachev (nickname 'Delfin')) are nevertheless not prosecuted and finishes with adding links to two further extensive analyses located elsewhere which I quote below for convenience.

MH17: Trial by media is failing under weight of facts --

For an extensive analysis of SBU's intercepted phone calls and their promotion by Bellingcat:

Part II MH17 and Open Source Intelligence: The SBU and Its Volunteer Intelligence Unit by Hector Reban

For an extensive video and audio analysis of SBU's intercepted phone calls: MH17 Video and Audio Forensic Analysis by Akash Roshen


The Living Force
Source (Dutch only): 'MH17-verdachte Chartsjenko zit in de cel'

DeepL Translator said:
Arrested by rebels
'MH17 suspect Khartshenko is in jail'

3 hours 6 minutes ago - Modified: 2 hours 50 minutes ago


Leonid Khartshenko - Image ANP

Leonid Khartshenko, one of the four MH17 suspects, has been in jail for two months. That's according to BBC Russian [in Russian]. The rebels in Eastern Ukraine are said to have picked him up 'preventively'.

According to the BBC, Leonid Khartshenko (nickname: 'the Mole') lived quietly in his house in Donetsk. This is in the rebel area of Eastern Ukraine where flight MH17 was brought down in 2014. Khartshenko is suspected by the Judiciary of being involved in the downing of MH17.

Rumors of his death

The Ukrainian has been indicted for murder, as have three Russians. Khartshenko knows the area well. He would have led the BUK rocket, the MH17 murder weapon, to the launch site.

So far, Khartshenko seemed to be getting away with it. It was unclear where he was and there were even rumors that he would be dead.

Now the generally reliable BBC Russian reports that Khartshenko was arrested at his home on 11 March this year. This was done by the rebels, who control the area with the support of Russia. According to BBC's sources, 'The Mole' is still in remand, which was supposed to have been extended for two months on 8 May.

Reason for arrest

Officially, Khartshenko has been arrested for an illegal house search in 2014 and prohibited possession of a weapon. Complete nonsense, sources say to the BBC. The people where the house search took place do not have any complaints about him. And the gun would have been given to him by the rebels in 2019, to defend himself when someone attempted to kidnap him in connection with MH17.

This fear of kidnapping would not be entirely unjustified: in 2019 Vladimir Tsemach was kidnapped by the Ukrainian secret service. The Judiciary sees this rebel commander as a suspect in the MH17 case, but he has not yet been charged. Tsemach's abduction was a remarkable operation, since he lived in rebel territory, behind enemy lines. Later Ukraine delivered him to Russia, under heavy political pressure from Moscow.

The rebels have not yet commented on Khartshenko's arrest.

Translated with (free version)

Similar coverage in Dutch:
'MH17-verdachte vast in Donetsk'


The Living Force
Archiving an article from SOTT about Dmitry Gordon that forms sort of a footnote here because Igor Girkin was mentioned in it:

Top Ukrainian journalist reveals he is an INTEL agent, drawing protests after interviews with 'enemies of the state' --


For over three hours, Gordon spoke to Igor Girkin, also known by his nom de guerre Igor Strelkov. He was a prominent military commander of the self-defense forces in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, during the peak of the civil war. Dutch prosecutors named him as one of the suspects in the downing of flight MH17, which happened while Girkin was in command.

So why did a respected journalist, a long-time fixture of the Ukrainian establishment, commit such spectacular professional suicide? Was it for ratings? The answer came hours after the episode with Girkin was released. Gordon called his guest "a terrorist" and said it was all part of a sting operation. He said in a video address:
"I did the interviews... in cooperation with Ukrainian security services. Nobody ever in Ukraine took statements from either Natalia Poklonskaya or Igor Girkin about the treason and crimes that had been committed with the help of those individuals."
Gordon said that flash-drives with the interviews "are now in the Hague" and will serve as "key evidence" in criminal prosecutions. He didn't bother to explain what exactly his guests told him that was not already on the public record - both have given dozens of interviews to other journalist(s) over the years. But he did threaten to send the cops after protesters vandalizing his office building.

On Tuesday, Ukraine's powerful SBU security service said that interviewing Poklonskaya and Girkin was done on Gordon's own initiative and that they would investigate the situation to determine if legal action is necessary.


Jedi Council Member
Потихонечку вылезает информация, которую с самого начала сказали C's.

«Боинг» MH17 над Донбассом взорвался изнутри

Slowly the information that C's said from the very beginning comes out.

"Boeing" MH17 over the Donbass exploded from the inside
Famous expert Yuri Antipov came to fantastic conclusions, studying the work of the Dutch Commission to investigate the tragedy of the passenger flight MH-17
Until now, it was assumed that the passenger "Boeing" of Malaysia Airlines, which crashed on July 17, 2014 in the sky over the Donbass, was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile system "Buk". All official parties agree on this. Only according to Kiev, the plane was attacked by a Russian missile, but Moscow, having declassified the documents of the Ministry of defense, proves that the charge was Ukrainian.

Russian independent technical expert Yuri Antipov believes that the airliner was not killed by a missile attack. He painstakingly studied a lot of evidence that suggests, in his opinion, an explosion inside the liner. For example, burnt ventilation ducts indicate a high temperature in the baggage compartment of the aircraft at the time of the crash. But the plane, it is known, did not burn in the air. The double-glazed Windows of the Boeing are squeezed out, which indicates high pressure inside the liner at the time of the tragedy. And it could only have been caused by an internal explosion.

Moreover, Antipov's thoughts are prompted by Dutch experts who head the international investigative group (ICG) investigating the disaster. The further they pursue this case, putting other materials in the public domain, the more questions, if not perplexities, this investigation causes. So our expert Yuri Antipov was surprised by the next finds, they seemed to him just mystical.

According to the MSG, the wreckage of the liner contains striking elements of the Buk missile. These are the I-beams that start the combat unit. The Dutch studied the chemical composition of these I-beams and found that they are made of tool, that is, especially hard steel. However, the same Commission published a photo of these I-beams. And in the pictures, they were flattened. And this, according to Yuri Antipov, a member of the Association of technical experts of Russia, is already out of the question! Tool steel can split when it hits, say, armor, but it can't flatten. Given that the liner is made almost entirely of soft aluminum, these striking elements should have kept their shape. But in the photo, we see what we see.

- How to understand such a riddle? I asked Yuri Nikolaevich.

- I believe that the Commission took the chemical analysis from the actual striking elements provided by either the Ukrainians or the Finns, who conducted tests with the explosion of the missile. And the pieces of metal that we see in the photo are taken from nowhere. I have pictures of the ship's dead commander. It was located just two meters from the center of the Buk explosion (according to the Dutch). And his body should be a sieve from the damaging elements, which are in the" Buk " tens of thousands. But the commander's body is intact,as is the copilot's. And these pictures were taken by a pathologist.

"But where did the flattened elements come from?" Is it a fake made of soft metal by a village blacksmith at someone's request?

- This is a matter for the Dutch experts. Any pieces of metal found must be sealed. Where they were found, who found them, who was present, along what trajectory they penetrated the bodies and structure of the aircraft, and so on. But first of all, they must be in the bodies of the pilots, because according to the Dutch version, the "Buk" exploded to the left of the cockpit. And they are not! I would like to add that the investigation work on the part of the Dutch was very sloppy from the first days. I saw how hastily, and therefore carelessly, they collected the remains of the liner in the fields. And many of the elements of the "Boeing" that remained after this collection, were stolen by local residents. Even four years later, when I returned to the scene of the tragedy, I found a lot of all sorts of details from the plane in the bushes. Some are as big as I am.

We will remind, the airliner flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down in the midst of fighting between Ukrainian troops and the DPR militia. All passengers and crew - 298 people-were killed. The international investigation team insists that the Buk installation that attacked the Boeing was imported from Russia. In the Netherlands, the wreckage of a rocket was demonstrated, the numbers of which the Russian defense Ministry traced all its way – from the manufacturer to the end user. And the trail led to the 223rd anti-aircraft missile regiment in the Lviv region. His "Buks" in the ATO zone were captured on Ukrainian TV channels a few days before the tragedy.


Then where did the rocket come from?

There were injuries on the Boeing that could not have been caused by an explosion inside

Alexander KOTZ

For almost six years, since the terrible tragedy in the sky over the Donbass, there have been many different exotic versions of the disaster. However, all experts in the field of aviation and weapons production-both Russian and foreign – agreed on one thing: the Boeing MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. Almaz-Antey Corporation, which produces Buk anti-aircraft missile systems, went on an unprecedented experiment by blowing up a missile next to the cabin of a decommissioned aircraft. It was proved that the Malaysian airliner was actually shot down by A Buk SAM charge, but the type of missile has not been in service with the Russian army since 2011. But such weapons remained with the Ukrainians. And without proper maintenance, which could only be carried out in Russia. However, the Ukrainians did not do this. Maybe here lies the answer to the sudden "plasticity" of materials.

As for the bodies of the pilots, who were allegedly not damaged, both the Dutch and Malaysian press repeatedly wrote that they were literally "stuffed" with both fragments of the fuselage and striking elements from the rocket. With reference to lawyers published x-ray images of the corpses of crew members, which show terrible injuries from shrapnel. In the end, numerous images of the cabin itself show that a huge number of striking elements passed through it into the interior. Such holes could not have been caused by an explosion from the inside.

If we take as a basis the version of the expert Antipov, then it is not very clear where not only the "plasticine" striking elements came from, but also part of the rocket itself, which was demonstrated in the Netherlands. It was brought together with the wreckage of the plane from the Donbass. And according to the serial numbers, the Russian defense Ministry was able to establish that it belonged to the Ukrainians. It is highly doubtful that they could have planted evidence that discredits them.
«Боинг» MH17 над Донбассом взорвался изнутри


The Living Force
Thanks for finding and sharing this article, youlik. :clap:

It sure delivers an intriguing expert opinion, to say the least. We'll have to wait and see though whether it gets any traction internationally.

An explosion inside the aircraft also inevitably poses the question how the explosive (bomb) got in there in the first place. Antipov shows no signs of expanding on that issue, speculative or otherwise.

Possibility of Being

FOTCM Member

A press conference ‘MH17 – Trial by Media’ will take place in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 6, 2020, in advance of the new sittings of the trial in absentia of three Russians and one Ukrainian in Amsterdam, beginning on June 8.

Earlier this year we have presented the investigative documentary MH17 – Call for Justice, produced by Bonanza Media, in London and The Hague, as the first detailed documentary film which challenged the Dutch and mainstream western media version of what actually happened on July 17, 2014 in eastern Ukraine. Presentations given including an audio forensics report by Mr. Akash Rosen, MSc, CHFI, GCIH, Associate ICFA, HCME Computer Incident Response and Forensics. During the events in March Bonanza revealed that the audio taps presented by the Ukrainian secret services were not authentic. The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) leaks shared by Bonanza Media offered an insight in the kitchen of manipulations, lies, groundless accusations and insinuations that surround the MH17 case.

The case is far from being closed, and so the search for the truth of what happened on that fateful day continues. In addition, there is a bigger conversation about the misinformation and propaganda which the public has been subject to. Therefore, the focus this time lies on the narrative created by the media around the MH17 tragedy which took the lives of 298 persons.

Yana Erlashova from Bonanza Media, will present new and important information on the case, while the panel of experts from the field of journalism, communications, political science and civil investigations will share their own insights and discuss the role which the media has played in the extreme politicization of public discourse on the downing of MH17 and subsequent public investigations.

Special panel guests will include Professor Kees van der Pijl, Professor Cees Hamelink, Dutch independent journalist Eriс van de Beek, German civil investigator and journalist Billy Six.

Date: June 6, 2020.
Time: 18.00 – 21.00 (local Dutch time)
Venue: Studio Weltschmerz, Hofvijver, The Hague.

For those unable to attend this event in person, a live stream will be broadcast on Saturday evening. Watch it here:

Live in 2 hrs

Edit: YT link replaced.
Last edited:


The Living Force
Thanks PoB for signaling this press event. :thup:

I'm watching and listening to it now, although not via the YT link you shared which only displays a message: "Video not available. This video was deleted by the up-loader." Luckily, the Bonanza Media link provided an alternative access point to the event.

The 'usual suspects' from the Bonanza Media circle are currently discussing the recent materials we already have published in several previous posts and (alas) so far I've not heard anything new.


The Living Force
The discussions have now been terminated. While I was watching/listening around 80 people on average were also watching it (with a spread from 73-93) and 10-15 of them were participating simultaneously in a chat room. Several of those chat room remarks were read aloud by someone of the organization till the end of the press event and subsequently addressed by some of the forum speakers.
Last edited:


The Living Force
Source (Dutch only): Verdediging bij hervatting MH17-proces: corona en tijdgebrek spelen ons parten

DeepL Translator said:
NOS News - Interior - Abroad - Today, 10:20 - Adjusted Today, 12:07

Defense on resumption MH17 process: corona and lack of time hamper us


Because of corona, appropriate measures have been taken in the courtroom - Image ANP

After it had been at a standstill for a few months, the MH17 trial continued at the court at Schiphol this morning. In March it was postponed to allow the defense to study the case file. The court back then pointed out that the Public Prosecution Service had "an enormous advantage" in terms of file knowledge. The defense hammered on that lead this morning, as it had also done in the media during the run-up to today.

The lawyers, Boudewijn van Eijck and Sabine ten Doesschate, stated that they have not yet been able to prepare themselves well enough for the case. Partly due to lack of time: the lawyers had to read the more than 40,000 page file within a few months.

That didn't work out, said Ten Doesschate. "It's a complex matter. You sometimes need technical expertise such as which ammunition particles can come from which weapon, how radar systems work or from which type of rocket a smoke trail can come off."

Occasional contact with client

The corona virus outbreak also acted as a hindrance. They couldn't go to Russia to discuss the file with their client, the Russian Oleg Poulatov. According to the defense, communicating remotely is not doable. An interpreter has to translate everything and it also wouldn't be safe to discuss confidential information over the phone. They have had only sporadic contact with Poulatov, who at the time was deputy head of the intelligence service of the rebel republic of Donetsk.

Therefore, the list of points that according to the lawyers have yet to be investigated, is far from complete. They also don't know yet whether they will ask the court to declare the Public Prosecutor's Office inadmissible, before the case has even started.

The lawyers said they are considering such a request, because the accused was involved in a military battle at the time and for that reason might not be liable to prosecution at all. According to the lawyers, at the moment it's too early to discuss possible immunity because it's not yet clear what exactly Poulatov's role has been.


The lawyers Boudewijn van Eijck and Sabine ten Doesschate - Image ANP

This afternoon, the Public Prosecutor's Office will provide more insight into the investigation into the four suspects who are now on trial. The court would also like to know whether the Public Prosecution Service has any other suspects in their sights. The hearing was adjourned at 12 noon and will continue at 13.00 hrs.

Normally a criminal file is only discussed briefly when the suspects are not present, as in this case. Nevertheless, the court believes that the file should now be discussed extensively, due to the great interest in the MH17 trial.

Incidentally, because of the corona virus, appropriate measures have been taken in the courtroom. The judges, clerks and public prosecutors are individually separated with plastic partitions between them. It is a lot calmer here now than it was in March, says reporter Remco Andringa. In the press center, with workplaces for hundreds of journalists, a maximum of thirty people are allowed in. "The number of seats in the courtroom is also very limited. Only a small group of surviving relatives is allowed to attend the case at Schiphol, in the public gallery that has been set aside for them. Furthermore, the trial can be followed entirely online."

Poulatov's lawyers said in the run-up to today that the corona arrangements had hindered their preparations. "Everyone wants this trial to take place as soon as possible; of course, that's what we want too, but unfortunately we have to conclude now that this is absolutely not possible and that will lead to a lot of delay", said lawyer Boudewijn van Eijck to NewsHour program.


The chance that Poulatov himself will come to the Netherlands seems very low. Russia will not cooperate, also because there is still a separate lawsuit against Russia ongoing.

Apart from what the defense will bring up in the coming days, the Public Prosecutor will want to make headway. The judiciary will give an explanation of the investigations that have been done so far into, for example, photographs, videos and satellite images.

Session days are scheduled from today until the beginning of next month. After that, the trial will continue again at the end of August.

Flight MH17 of Malaysia Airlines was brought down over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014. 298 people were killed, including 196 Dutch nationals.

Translated with (free version)

Other coverage:
After three months, the MH17 hearings resume at Schiphol court -

Advocaten MH17-verdachte hebben meer tijd nodig, alleen nog oppervlakkig contact met Poelatov


The Living Force
Source (Dutch only): Testontploffing Buk-raketten bij MH17-onderzoek

DeepL Translator said:
NOS News - Interior - Abroad - Today, 19:39

Test explosion of BUK missiles in MH17 research


The blast test - Image JIT

Remco Andringa
Police and Justice editor

At a new hearing in the MH17 process, the Public Prosecutor's Office explained how extensive the MH17 investigation has been in recent years. Up to and including a rocket blast test.

The Public Prosecutor did not present any new evidence today. Once again, prosecutors pointed to Russia's obstruction: the country would have paid people to spread false evidence.

The prosecution showed footage of the test. In the autumn of 2016, two BUK missiles were detonated on a grassy plain in Ukraine. High-speed cameras recorded how metal particles drill into the aluminum plates set up next to the rocket.

The test was carried out on behalf of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), the international police and justice team investigating the downing of flight MH17. The investigators want to know what impact a BUK rocket has on the material from which aircraft are also constructed.

The test with BUK rockets in Ukraine was meant to compare the pierced metal plates with the "craters and perforations" on the wreckage of MH17. They turned out to be very similar. For the JIT another indication that the plane was indeed shot down with a BUK rocket and that, for example, there was no explosion on board.

<video clip (0:32 min.) of detonation omitted, and not embed-able>

The aircraft of Malaysia Airlines was shot down over a war zone in 2014. In Eastern Ukraine there was fighting between the Ukrainian army and various armed groups. According to the Public Prosecutor, these separatists consisted largely of Russians. Three of the four suspects in the MH17 trial are also from Russia. The four are suspected of the shooting down of the aircraft over Ukraine in 2014 and the murder of all 298 occupants.

Based on the rocket test in Ukraine and the holes and impacts found on the MH17, calculations were made to determine from where the BUK was fired. This way the JIT came out in the middle of rebel territory. Because it was too dangerous to carry out forensic investigations at the crash site, the debris was later investigated in the Netherlands just like the bodies of the victims and their luggage. A total of 370 metal particles found were compared to parts of BUK rockets, which also enabled JIT to determine which type was used.

<video clip (1:07 min.) of triage omitted, and not embed-able>

The Public Prosecutor also discussed the tapped conversations provided by the Ukrainian secret service, which serve as evidence in the case. There is no indication that they have been manipulated, the prosecutor said. The Public Prosecutor's Office concluded that they were authentic, among other things on the basis of transmitter mast data.

Other evidence, such as photos and videos, has always been judged on authenticity. The Public Prosecutor also interviewed witnesses, some of whom remain anonymous for security reasons. In one case it turned out that a procedural error had been made. That statement is no longer allowed to be used.

Suspect Oleg Poulatov's lawyers also spoke today. They asked for more time to prepare for the case. They said they only had sporadic contact with their client. Because of the corona measures, they could not go to Russia to discuss the case with him.

Later this month, the defense will explain which investigations are still needed. In the next few days, the prosecution will further outline why an attack with a BUK missile is most likely and how the investigation into the four suspects has been conducted.

Translated with (free version)


FOTCM Member
The discussions have now been terminated. While I was watching/listening around 80 people on average were also watching it (with a spread from 73-93) and 10-15 of them were participating simultaneously in a chat room. Several of those chat room remarks were read aloud by someone of the organization till the end of the press event and subsequently addressed by some of the forum speakers.

Had also listened in (sound was a bit fuzzy here at times) until they wrapped up with some questions, as you said. Missed some of the early talk having jumped in midstream.


The Living Force
Would you -or anyone else for that matter- want to watch it (again), the link PoB provided in post #1,177 is still active from start to finish.

Possibility of Being

FOTCM Member
As Palinurus said, there was nothing new there and the main focus of most of it was on trial by media (historically and in this particular case). One important thing they said was that while Yana (and other independent journalists/ investigators present interviews with real witnesses, with their names and faces known, the prosecutor's side has only anonymous accounts and claims, and the people behind that will likely never be known. And if they don't present more solid evidence, it would be the first precedence in the whole jurisdiction history when a court case is based mostly, if not solely, on social media. With consequences impossible to predict.


The Living Force
Source (Dutch only): OM: voor MH17-onderzoek werd alles uit de kast gehaald

DeepL Translator said:
Public Prosecutors: for MH17 investigation, we pulled out all the stops

MH17 After two days of explanation by the Public Prosecution Service, it appears that everything has been done to complete the evidence against four suspects in the MH17 trial.

Steven Derix - 9 June 2020 at 16:53

How do you describe the course of a criminal investigation by hundreds of investigators from the Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium?

The Public Prosecutor's Office (OM) started Monday with an explanation of more than five years of investigation into the shooting down of flight MH17 over Ukraine. On Monday and Tuesday, the three public prosecutors already gave an overview of all the investigative acts that were carried out. "I hope you still follow it all a bit", said prosecutor Thijs Berger somewhat apologetically after a long explanation about rocket heads and fragmentation particles. "It's a complex matter." And the prosecutors aren't done yet, Wednesday the presentation will continue.

From the explanation of the Public Prosecution Service it became clear once more that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has done its utmost to complete the evidence against four suspects in the MH17 case. A total of seven real BUK rockets were unscrewed in order to examine their operation, and rocket heads and entire rockets were detonated in both Finland and Ukraine.

Testing, testing, testing

These 'arena tests' have provided important information about the damage caused by the fragmentation particles when they pierce the fuselage of an aircraft. Strange bulges around the holes in the wreckage, where the aluminum had not been bent inwards but outwards ('petalling'), also appeared to occur on the aluminum plates used in the test explosion. This showed that the damage was caused by an external explosion, and not by a bomb on board.

Another example. The indictment against three Russian and one Ukrainian suspect states that flight MH17 was shot down with a BUK anti-aircraft missile of the '9M38' series. Although it was not legally necessary, the Public Prosecutor's Office also had any other type of missile investigated. Based on forensic research, the PPO concluded that the rocket with which MH17 was shot down had "more similarities" to a rocket of the newer type 9M38M1 than to its predecessor, the type 9M38.

With this, the PPO contradicted the Russian Ministry of Defense, which, at the request of the Netherlands, carried out research into serial numbers found on rocket parts. According to Moscow, archive documents show that this is a rocket of the older type 9M38, which was assembled in Moscow on December 24, 1986 and delivered in 1987 to a unit in the then Ukrainian Soviet Republic. During a press conference in Moscow, the Russian ministry showed the accounts: MH17 had been brought down with a 'Ukrainian rocket'.

However, further investigation shows that the Russian information is not correct. For example, a recovered rocket casing shows a different assembly date than that given by the Russians: December 15, 1986. This information was deliberately not shared with the Russians. During the explanation, the public prosecutor stated again that the Russian Federation is "not in good faith". That is why not only was a meticulous investigation carried out into what exactly happened, but a great deal of time and energy was put into refuting alternative scenarios and disinformation surrounding the MH17 file.

The Public Prosecutor has not yet been able to find out why MH17 was fired upon, and who pressed the button. "Of course it is desirable for the next of kin to get more clarity about the reason for the shooting of MH17," said public prosecutor Berger. However, this is not necessary for the prosecution of the four suspects.

American information

The many hours of explanation showed once again that the Public Prosecution Service has a large amount of evidence at its disposal: forensic traces, telecom data, witnesses, photographs and videos, digital sources, and radar and satellite data. Pièce de résistance is a memorandum from the American intelligence services. It states that the 'American intelligence community' has detected the launch of an 'SA-11 anti-aircraft missile' [the NATO name for the BUK missile] at 'about six kilometers south of the city of Snizhne in eastern Ukraine'. The Americans do not want to release the satellite data that reveals this, but the Dutch authorities have been allowed to see the state secret documents that underlie the American conclusions.

It is not the only evidence that is difficult to verify. The file contains statements by thirteen anonymous protected witnesses. Oleg Poulatov's lawyers have protested against the anonymous statements. The court rejected that, except in the case of one witness. It is not yet clear whether his testimony should be removed from the file.

By the way, the defense wasn't heard much in the last few days. Lawyer Sabine ten Doesschate let it be known that because of the corona crisis and the closing of the international borders there has hardly been any contact with suspect Poulatov, who is staying in Russia. The lawyers were therefore not yet able to conduct so-called 'preliminary defenses', such as whether the Dutch Public Prosecution Service may prosecute the suspects at all.

Translated with (free version)
Top Bottom