Thread by @christogrozev

Day 2 of the #MH17 court hearings is starting.

Prosecution starts with presenting the status of the investigation, starting with the method of investigation (the JIT), followed up by validation and verification status, and ongoing evidence collection. Following the upcoming status summary, witness safety will be discussed.

Prosecution refutes Russia's claims that Ukraine had any veto rights on what information the Joint Investigation Team is included in the file or made public.

100's of witnesses were interviewed in many countries, bodies of victims were forensically analyzed, thousands of photos of videos were studied. We took an unusually conservative approach to validating evidence due to the contentious nature of the evidence

The JIT did not just take for granted the telephone intercepts provided by Ukraine. It validated it by multiple methods, including getting raw telecoms data, comparing it with data from other international parties such as Spain and Poland, and "auditing" callers on the content

The prosecutor gives examples of how data contained in intercepted phone calls was validated by comparing events mentioned in the calls to actual (non-public) events known to JIT from other sources

The authors of the videos and photos of the BUK & trail of smoke were sought out and whenever possible, the original SD cards of the photo/video-taker was taken and forensically analyzed for manipulation. Actual weather conditions were compared to photo content.

The prosecution says all evidence provided by @Bellingcat was always carefully validated independently by the JIT

The prosecution now reads out guidance on how evidence must be analyzed *holistically* for internal coherence with other evidence, such standards established in he Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal

An actual photo of a BUK convoy was emailed to the JIT with subject Buk M Makeevka. No metadata was available. Authenticity was tested in many ways and it was determined it may have been taken in Donetsk between 8:45 and 9:00.

The photo was consistent with an intercepted phone call where a military driver said they needed to stop in the left lane at exactly the same spot. This was also consistent with social media posting about people seeing a BUK in Donetsk.

So, the rule was: first the photo is validated technically, then content compared to known facts, and then to other evidence. The holistic approach (the same one used by @bellingcat btw - note from me)

After gathering all evidence, alternative scenarios were also analyzed: BUK fired from Ukrainian-controlled area, other non-BUK surface-to-air , air-to-air missile. After 5 years of detailed analysis, only one scenario matched the evidence

MH17 was shot down from a BUK missile launched from a plot of land near Pervomaysk in non-Ukrainian controlled territory. The BUK Telar was brought from Russia and towed back to Russia after the shoot-down.

The question has been raised if we took into account witness statements claiming alternative scenarios such as fighter planes shooting MH17. Yes it has, but it contradicts all objective evidence, such as Russia's radar data. We cannot therefore credit such witness statements.

Witnesses value is important. Many witnesses have been interviewed as protected witnesses. Protected status is given based on perceived and logical risk. If a Russia-based witness says Ukraine shot it, the risk to such witness is not considered high, and conversely.

The prosecution reads out a United Nations report on the lawlessness and violence in the non-government controlled parts of Ukraine, as justification for the protected status of witnesses from those areas. One witness was visited twice by armed officers after publishing a video

Numbered witness quotes are being read out by the prosecutor, showing the degree of fear by witnesses. "I fear I will be picked up by Russian secret services, but I feel it my duty to testify..just do not publish my name"

The prosecutor cites the GRU and FSB murders of people inconvenient to the Kremlin in UK, Germany and Bulgaria, as reason for the heightened concern to the security of witnesses. JIT has determined GRU and FSB were closely involved in Eastern Ukraine

Intercepted calls from July 2014 show militants discussed how they received approval from Moscow to execute people. (not previously disclosed!)

Furthermore, GRU attempted to hack the Dutch Safety Board and the Malaysian JIT team. A witness #28 said that their laptop was confiscated by FSB while he/she was investigating MH17 within Russian territory.

Several witnesses have confirmed they fear for their lives if GRU and FSB discover their identities, which these services go to great lengths to.

In each case the investigative magistrate evaluated the risk to a specific witness, and weighted that risk against the interest of the defense to interrogate such witness. Such balance was sought, and some anonymize witnesses may need to be interrogated. To be decided.

The prosecution believes the case file is ready to be reviewed on the merit. A few ongoing interrogations are still to be completed, and the case will be supplemented with new evidence before the trial block starting June 8.

The prosecution will present photo images and info-graphics to visualize, for example, the radar data gathered.

The goal is not to present all possible evidence in the case of MH17, but to provide overwhelmingly sufficient evidence proving the guilt of these 4 defendants.

The prosecution will follow public statements and social media posts by the defendants, in case they want to provide their input to the trial remotely.

A separate ongoing JIT investigating is researching criminal responsibility of people in the chain of command of the BUK Telar's usage. Relevant new information from that investigation will be supplemented to this case as it becomes available.

Prosecution says yesterday's defense argument that Ukraine's liability for non-closure of airspace makes no sense: if such liability exists, its investigation would be in the interest of the victims, not in the interests of the defendants.

In October 2019, we requested interrogation of the 3 Russian defendants in Russia. Only last week we received a response only in the case of Pulatov, who chose to remain silent. We honor that decision and he has the opportunity to change his mind before June.

Pulatov's defense said he is not guilty of the crime. That says everything while saying nothing. That does not say whether he refutes his involvement in the actions on 17 July 2014, or just denies being culpable. Only a statement by himself to the court will clarify this.

If Pulatov wants to make a statement to court in a safe-haven where he will not be arrested, he must apply for this as soon as possible. There is no legal statute for such case but there are precedents such as the case with Suriname's ex-president.

Pulatov is free to remain silent, or to make a statement later, but he should be aware that any form of testimony - whether via legal assistance to Russia or otherwise - would require months to prepare - so, in short, he should ask for it now.

After a long and detailed explanation of Pulatov's rights, opportunities for defense, and risks if he shows up in the Netherlands or a third country, prosecutor asks Girkin 1 question in relation a witness statement given to Russian authorities in 2015.

A quote from an interview by Girkin is read out: "In the afternoon of 17 July 2015, "Kot" reported that a SU had been shot down near Snizhne".
That was 10 minutes after the actual shootdown of MH17. There was no other plane shot down on that day. WHICH aircraft did you mean?

(the quote is allegedly from the deposition by Girkin to Russian authorities in 2015 - not sure which one that was)

Dubinsky has told journalists that his voice is indeed on the intercepted conversations about procuring a BUK. In an interview with the BBC he said he was not charged with the procurement of the BUK. We invite him to explain this contradiction.

Kharchenko, in a video interview, says that he never saw a BUK on DNR's territory. But we have objective evidence the BUK was on DNR. Numerous telephone intercepts point to his role in securing the BUK. Now is the time for him to explain the truth.

Prosecutor argues that the Court should allow the pre-trial case presentation incl witness testimony to proceed now while defendants continue to review the case and prepare their defense. They will have two more opportunities to challenge findings & cross-interrogate by October

(20 minute break in court proceedings)

This is the BUK convoy photograph the prosecutor described in his statement bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-eu…

The trial continues. The prosecution asks court to allow additional investigation in several areas. The first one is additional intercepted calls. Their authenticity is already confirmed by JIT, but criticism has appeared to such conclusion. One example is..

..the investigation of YouTube videos made by Malaysian expert Rosen who concludes are not original and they have been edited. That is self-evident as he reviews Youtube video, and not original audio. Further, he makes illogical conclusions.

In conclusions, his report may say something about Youtube videos, but it provides no reason for us to doubt the intercepted calls. Dutch NFI expert says "Rosen's report fails to comply with both principles of forensic analysis of authenticity of phone calls"

General statements "all calls are manipulated" cannot be investigated. We can only investigate specific accusations of audio call manipulation, using linguistic and technical methods. We see no specific information so far that causes doubt in our assessment.

If a *serious* source brings forward such doubts, we would be able to refer such calls to be analyzed by Russian-speaking forensic experts, for example in Baltic countries. Moving on to authenticity of video and photograph materials..

Russian MoD has argued in 2018 that images used by JIT have been manipulated. The MoD had earlier in 2014 however said the same image was real but it was made in Krasnoarmeysk, not in Lugansk. This was not the only case of contradictory statements by MoD.

Let's not forget MoD showed satellite photographs of a Ukrainian BUK that disappeared a day after July 17 2014, suggesting it downed MH17. However satellite images and meteo investigation showed Russian photographs were pre-dated. Thus the 2018 allegations were not taken seriosly

Any party that has provided false and misleading evidence once should be taken with a grain of salt in subsequent submissions. Shortly before this case Russia claimed further falsifications at the ECHR separate trial by relatives against Russia.

In that court case Russia presents as false, video of the BUK in Snizhne that were not disputed before. The RU statement does not explain why and how the video was falsified, it just says it was so. Despite previous lies, we agree to re-investigate this video's authenticity.

Russia's statement in ECHR uses Youtube metadata to claim that the video from Snizhne was made 16 July, one day before the shoot-down. However, this is inconsistent with all other evidence. Despite the lack of logic, we will refer this video for further forensic examination.

(comment: the earlier upload date by 23 hours is a well-known and documented bug in Youtube's conversion of mp4 videos)

A comment on reference to protected witnesses: we will always use "he" to refer to both male and female witnesses for additional anonymization.

Anonymous witnesses - in view of the nature of the threat by Russia that tries to remove evidence of its involvement - should not be interrogated by prosecution or defense, but only by the investigating judge. We have also removed dates of prior interrogations.

The prosecution requests the court to appoint an investigative judge that is not a member of the sitting court, to avoid the risk of a judge in court knowing more details than the defense lawyers.

Breaking: A witness #58 who says he was a Russian volunteer in 2014 in DNR. He said during the downing of Mh17 he was at Snizhne at the moment the missile was launched. He was tasked to guard the site. Details of the location were exhaustive. He and others were initially happy..

..until they realized a civilian plane has been downed. We have taken extreme measures to protect the identity of M 58, and he was interrogated by a magistrate w/o prosecutor or defense being present. Interrogations must happen as early as possible to prevent outing by media

This witness's testimony is consistent and creditable, however we have other questions about what he saw - for example he says he noticed clear Russian accents among crew, and that FSB officers were present at the BUK site.We would like more questions asked while safety protected

Another witness : S21 in summer of 2014 reported to t Kharchenko. On 17.07 he was tasked to help transport the BUK Telar from Snizhne to Debaltseve S 21 said another witness S 07 was also present during this removal process although he remained silent. We need to question S 7

Witnes S17 says on 17 July he saw a video of a tank-looking system recorded by a friend . We need to confront him with images of a BUK-Telar to check if his recollection matches that image. S27 describes convos of people who took part of the launch. We need to ask more questions

S32 said he filmed a BUK Telar using their dashboard camera. Many of these witnesses were not re-interrogated due to safety concerns but we request the court to review possibility for safe interviewing at this time.

Prosecution lays out additional court review needed on wreckage of BUK missile fragments to further compare to known specimen of BUKs. The prosecution is convinced of the type and provenance but asks the Court to have a session at the wreckage location to review the evidence.

Access to documents for defense: prosecution has agreed to give access to docs outside the Case File that it believes is irrelevant but that the defense believes otherwise. Subject to safety of witness and Court decision.

Prosecution concludes its (additional) evidence review with a focus on covert disinformation attempts by states that present manipulated data. This disinformation presents a threat to democracy, rule of law and society. We have taken measures to counter these campaigns..

After Mh17, a coordinated campaign was started... and we have pinpointed its source precisely. In the first hours, information flowed unfiltered. Russian media boasted about a missile shoot-down by "rebels" of a "Ukrainian plane" (quotes from RU media read out)

The early media coverage mention truthful elements that were later established by the investigation: rebels role, use of BUK missile, and the exact area. The only incorrect reporting was WHAT was shot down.

When it became clear it was a civilian aircraft, the disinformation started immediately. LifeNews TV deleted all previous reporting, and changed the narrative to Ukrainian surface-to-air missile, and later changed again to Ukrainian fighter jet - in line with the MoD's then story

In the first MoD press conference presented two alternative stories: a Ukrainian BUK or a Ukrainian fighter jet. Until May 2015, the fighter jet was the main Russian scenario. But once the DSB report was published, Russia shifted to a Ukrainian BUK scenario, forgetting the jet.

The jet totally disappeared when Russia provided radar data showing no airplane present in the vicinity of MH17. Then MoD claimed that Ukraine used a missile inhererited from the Soviet Union. But until today, there is no one coherent story from Russia on what happened.

The only consistent Russian narrative is that JIT is biased and uses falsified data. At the same time, Russia has consistently published falsified data, and has stated there is no reason to allow interrogation of Russian citizens by JIT.

The MH17 investigation has become a textbook example of a state-level disinformation campaign coordinated by the Russian state. The aim has been to undermine trust in the Dutch judiciary. This culminated in the publication of internal confidential JIT reports just before trial

By example, the "leak" reports claim that Australian JIT members claimed photographic data was manipulated due to inconsistent metadata. However, in the same document Australian investigators provide possible explanation for the same mismatch. This is omitted in the RU reports

Furthermore, what is omitted from the "leaked" report is a section that discusses a video from Torez near the launch site. Apparently, the publishers (= @MaxvanderWerff, my note) cherry-picked which parts to publish, simply so as manipulate public opinion.

Another disinformation propagated by the "leak" is that Dutch military intel did not identity a Russian BUK in the vicinity of the launch. However this is not true, the only thing Dutch intel confirmed is that there were not Russian or Ukrainian permanent bases near the site.

Only 4 JIT countries - except Ukraine - had access to the "leaked" data. Many of these documents were not part of the case file. One of the GRU officers detained in NL in 2018 had traveled previously to Malaysia to obtained info from Malaysian police.

We must conclude that the disinformation campaign is based on GRU hacks of one of the 4 countries. However, they could not have gotten access to witness details which we have stored - anonymized - in a different secure digital location with much more limited access.

(you might look at our previous publication on the Kremlin's ever-shifting narratives bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-eu…)

In observance of the interest of next of kin, JIT has previously published key parts of the information discovered, and status updates. This is the only reason we have published information which is usually kept confidential until the case goes to court.

The remaining investigations will last likely until the end of this year. This means consideration on the merit will take place in early 2021. And this means until then we will be exposed to continued concerted disinformation. We must be prepared for that.

This case file is extremely complex. It includes an abundance of raw radar data, voluminous telecoms (call) data. We believe we should adopt a staged approach. Alternative scenarios could be discussed on the merit and ruled out during the June sessions on the merit.

If the defense wants to bring witnesses to support the air-to-air scenario, they can do so in June - but this would be the same as bringing a knife-attack witness to a murder-by-bullet case.

A staged process that carves out impossible scenarios will make the public's understanding simpler, and will reduce the impact of concerted disinformation campaigns. We ask the Court to decide on what we should discuss in pre-trial and on the merit first.

We request
* Pulatov case next hearing be at the wreckage site for a reconstruction demonstration.
* safe interrogation of witnesses M58, S07, S17, S21, S27, S32
* Full review of video recording of M58 testimony
* Snizhne BUK video re-evaluation based on RU's ante-dating claims

In addition, we ask the court to set a deadline for Pulatov before June to state what else the defense wants investigated further, and what of such additional findings they would allow to be used for the other 3 defendatns.

Judge invites defense to respond after the lunch break. The defense now says a new document was sent to court an hour ago, and want 10 minutes to explain it in the afternoon. It is something that arose from yesterday's hearings.

Apologies, it is the lawyers for the victims' families that invoked this new document (letter), not the defense lawyers. It is being distributed now to the defense lawyers.

(Break for approximately 1 hour)

Court resumes. Pulatov's defense lawyer corrects prosecution, says she they don't speak good enough Russian to understand what her client said about his readiness to speak "before Dutch court", vs "in Dutch court". She will find out what he meant.

Defense says the case volume is too large for them to be able to make meaningful investigative requests prior to the June 2020 hearing block. Wants more time.

The other defense lawyer now criticizes the prosecutor over (a) discussing publicly risk to witnesses, and (b) Russian disinformation claims. In particular, why then does NL ask for legal cooperation from Russia. How so?

(I do not really understand the logic of the argument, still trying to grasp it... should the Netherlands NOT try to use international rules of legal assistance because it has found out Russia impedes the investigation? But that's a recipe for another accusation by Russia)

Now .. a legalistic dispute between defense and prosecutor over how exactly Pulatov could be allowed to have the option to make a statement in June 2020... and when he can/must decide to take advantage...

The legal team of the next of kin complains that they were not given enough notice time to prepare an opening statement yesterday, and that victims relatives didn't get the same access to the Prosecution case file as the defendants did.

(in the meantime, here is the excerpt from Girkin's deposition to Russian investigative authorities from from February 2015 that JIT obtained from Russia)

Last segment of today's hearings resumed. Prosecution now responds to Pulatov's defense. He should have enough time to acquaint himself with the file, especially given the defense law-firm has announced it has a team of 19 persons on the case.

Also, no exception should be made - according to the prosecution - on the protection of identity of witnesses in order to allow Pulatov's lawyers the right to interrogate him. The court will have to decide on these conflicting requests.

After some back and forth among prosecutors, defense lawyers and victims' lawyers over the time needed for acquainting each team with the case file, and the necessary restrictions of access to next of kin, the court adjourned until March 23. (end of thread)