Thread by @HRIMark

#MH17 . Today we will see the defence continue to outline their requests for further investigation following yesterday's impressive performance by lawyers Sabine ten Doesschate & Boudewijn van Eijck.

Van Eijck will be picking up following his points regarding the 130 Netherlands Forensic Institute reports about which questions need to be answered regarding the author's expertise, methodology & possible contamination.

#MH17 Judge: Prosecution response to defence requests will be on Thursday.
Prosecution: wants copy of yesterday's Pulatov interview.

#MH17 Defence: Discussing 20 June 2016 Australian Police Report drafted by Mr Morrell. The author is not an expert. His knowledge is limited to dismantling of Ukrainian reference missiles & reading manuals.

The report doesn't specify what methods used. Morrell says direction of impact can't be from inside to outside seemingly based on a different report drawn up by Dutch officials. Scientific value of this police officer's findings unclear. Meaning of his conclusions not clear.

Re: Dutch Junker and Moraneser(?) Report - authors claim green metal part penetrated from front to aft & from bottom. Who established this? Needs to be examined. They also say no manipulation apparent on prop due to undisturbed soot. No information on expertise of these officers.

#MH17 defence. Re NLR & RMA reports. Defence has apparently already been granted permission to question investigators regarding damage pattern & protrusions - would like confirmation from court.

#MH17 defence: Rink(?) Report could be excluded from evidence rather than question the author. Could also apply to 2 TNO reports.
Regarding NLR & RMA reports, need to understand more about expert work, contamination due to prior information.

For instance, regarding RMA reports not clear which fragments are being referred to & what information available to experts when compiled reports.

RMA report on uniqueness of fragments - report was prepared looking to see if only a BUK could have caused the damage. IE the proposition set out was not a neutral one. There is no reference in the report to which actual fragments were used.

This RMA report even has a disclaimer saying unknown if a different missile system could have been used. Necessary to ask report authors about their expertise, to clarify what earlier research drawn upon.

Defence wants to question authors of another report which tries to explain differences between arena test components and MH17 components.

Defence wishes to question authors of report on perforations and report on BUK firing location. Possible launch area was calculated from damage pattern using model. Data was extrapolated to obtain spherical pattern. But extrapolation is not necessarily reliable.

Average speed over 4 meters was used as basis for assessments by NLR - but experts need to questioned over this.

Two TNO reports appended to DSB report. Drafters of reports need to be ?ed.
In neither case was author's name cited.
1) Reconstruction of damage pattern was based on small sub-selection of wreckage.
2) Was combat load broke down properly (explosive & non-explosive parts)?

TNO recommendations for further analysis appear to have never been done.

For the simulation model PETN explosive which was found was not used but a 60/40 explosive ratio which is not explained. Not explained why ratio was chosen and what effect this has on the modelling. Report may therefore not be reliable as evidence

RMA & NLR experts met in Amsterdam 8 September 2016 to discuss arena tests but there are no minutes in the case file. Have the experts influenced one another? Defence requests minutes.

Prosecution does not specify which type of BUK missile (audio break) There are differences between different warheads. Prosecution claims both types of missile can fire 9N314M - report supporting this not in case file.

#MH17 defence: 100s of persons visited site before recovery work took place. There was fighting in area. Not clear from case file effects of this. Not all wreckage was recovered. At time of TNO report only 20-25% recovered & only front of aircraft reconstructed.

Prosecution does not specify which type of BUK missile (audio break) There are differences between different warheads. Prosecution claims both types of missile can fire 9N314M - report supporting this not in case file.

#MH17 Defence. Which items recovered were used to determine cause of crash? Is there a list of all wreckage? Which parts were and which weren't analysed.
Important this is added to case file to determine legal value of reports.

#MH17 Defence: Part 2 - If MH17 was downed by BUK missile was it downed from a field near Pervomaiske?
Relevant are inbound / outbound route and firing location. Evidence includes photos & witnesses.
Prosecution also links route to intercepts, request and guarding of the BUK.

#MH17 Defence: does not accept that investigation is complete. There was a war in the Donbass & transport of war material was common. The question of how to interpret phone intercepts as well as images etc is very different in a war situation.

#MH17 Defence: Witnesses will be non-experts who can't necessarily tell the difference between tanks, telars, BUKs etc. Witnesses' memories can be tainted. Every one of the witnesses was involved in the war in one way or another. They are not random bystanders.

#MH17 Defence: Many of the witnesses may have been directly involved. They could have been functionally involved. So may have had an interest in making a specific incorrect statement. Statements could easily have pressurised.

#MH17 Defence: Gives example of witness in case file saying he used to be part of a "terrorist organisation."
HRI comment: How likely is that to be an unpressured statement?

#MH17 Defence: Not everything in inaccessible investigation file is in the case file. Data on the route seems to be hidden. Major differences between what eyewitnesses say they saw are unacknowledged by JIT or described as "mistakes". So more investigation is necessary.

#MH17 Defence: Witness S21 (Mr "Kruglov") is claimed to be a separatist involved in removal of BUK missile. His drawing looks like tank, no missiles or launcher. Clear evidence from statement that SBU told him to add a rocket launcher.

Much of S21's statement inaudible. Need to assess what he he claims to have seen and his freedom in making his statement.

In S21's statement of interview he is asked if there is anything he wishes to add.
The reply in the case file is:
"Inaudible"

#MH17 Defence: The JIT claims some of its witnesses are now dead.
Witness 07 "Stariy" alleged to be present with S21. S21 and 07 need to have statements and their reliabilty cross checked through verbal examination.

#MH17 Defence: Evidence of other witnesses could also be important in testing S21 reliability. Witnesses NN1 NN2 and Alexander - no witness statements in case file. Defence doesn't know if they have been interviewed or not.

Devastating evidence today that the SBU, prime suspects in the case, documented by the UN to have committed 100s of cases of torture & in charge of the #MH17 investigation, led prime witness S21 & co-erced him into making a statement implicating the separatists in the downing.

#MH17 Defence: Rodshenko ("Unka") apparently not interviewed - defence wishes to interview him regarding reliability of S21. Also other witnesses. S24 is mentioned as having transported BUK to Russia but no statement in case file. Also reports & conversations with S24 & Yeffimov.

#MH17 Defence: Prozenzko (Vostok battalion) also needs to be interviewed.

#MH17 Defence: This is the map of the route of the BUK in the case file drawn by witness SO1. Defence says many of his statements not in the file.

#MH17 defence: S39 whose name has been redacted saw the BUK at a location that has been redacted & was told by a person whose name has been redacted that a BUK had been launched.

#MH17 defence: numerous witnesses, unknown role, redacted names, contradictory evidence regarding numbers and colours of missiles, redacted locations etc.

Witness S18 states he saw BUK at 8am in morning in Snizhnye. It was supposed to be in Donetsk.

#MH17 Two unknown AP journalists supposed to have seen 7 tanks and BUK outside Snizhnye. JIT uses this to support their narrative. Defence requires further information & wishes to interview them. Were the tanks in the locality of the BUK, timings etc.

Journalist Peter Leonard claims to have talked to the AP journalists but the investigation team failed to identify them. Leonard should be interviewed and his notes provided.

#MH17 Defence: Images of BUK - authenticity needs to be established. Are they of THE actual BUK Telar or just A BUK Telar?

#MH17 Defence: Markings and numbering IDed as from 53rd AAMB. Apparently 15 markings. Lot of information of this the "knowledge & experience" of an unnamed Russian-speaking military adviser. But nothing regarding his specific knowledge. This is very important.

#MH17 Defence: Requires details regarding alleged 5 July 2014 video.
Re Gereshenko (adviser to Ministry of Foreign Affairs) who uploaded photo from ""Kropochov" from Torez. Need more info eg about video cameras apparently installed in Torez and Snizyhne.

#MH17 Defence: Transmission mask data required for all witnesses where required. According to investigating judge, transmission mask data and witness statements do not appear to match.

#MH17 Defence: Metadata regarding witnesses should be added to case file.

#MH17 Defence: Witnesses to be re-interviewed re telecomms & route. Relevant to launch site and vehicle. Metadata can support or not support routes, witness statements & interpreting conversations. Pulatov said content may not be apparent as they used code words. Eg Toy = device.

#MH17 Defence: Deliberately deceptive messages were also sent out, as the militia knew their conversations were tapped. Even JIT recognises code words were used. Nothing to indicate for instance that "box" does not equal "tank".

#MH17 Defence: JIT claims Toy = BUK. No evidence for this. Also JIT claims Box = BUK. No evidence for this. Defence intends to question actual participants in the conversations as JIT is using its interpretation of code words to support its case.

If court does not accept that all important conversations would be conducted via secure lines or in-person, then the defence would like to call Kuprian aka "Batia" who has stated any conversations involving any real BUK would not have been conducted by telephone.

#MH17 Defence: Kuprian needs to be questioned about Volvo truck. Was this truck previously rented out to Ukrainian army?

#MH17 Defence: Important to test reliability of "professional soldier" in UKR army with regard to BUK 312.

#MH17 Defence: Semak needs to be interviewed. If BUK transported via JIT route Semak or his subordinates would have seen it.

#MH17 Defence: S30 said S31 said to him that Semak told S31 that he had shot down #MH17. All these people need to be interviewed, as do Godvinaz & Sinenkov.

#MH17 Defence: The case file states BUK came from Russia and 53rd Brigade. Witness S28 claims knew members of 53rd Brigade including Minsky & Dimitri Trunin. Defence wishes to question of S28 and people from the 53rd Brigade.

#MH17 Defence: Regarding social media user information not clear who hidden behind username. Defence regards the evidentiary value of social media messages included in case file is zero. If court disagrees then defence wishes to interview all the social media users involved.

#MH17 Defence: Regarding contacts between daniel-b.cat and "emailer" in case file. Defence regards evidentiary value as zero but if court disagrees then "emailer" must be questioned.

#MH17 Defence: Illiycha Ave 78 BUK photo. First in E. Ukraine. Attachment to email in JIT. Subject suggests it was in Makeevka. Case file contradictory about how received & if sender known. For evidentiary reasons need to establish when & where taken & whether taken in July 14.

#MH17 Defence - JIT seems to have based its findings on Bellingcat - copied and pasted and added to case file. Defence wishes to establish who drafted investigation results so they can be summoned as witness.

#MH17 Defence: Another video. Would like to examine Kate Louise Garratty of Sydney Morning Herald and video maker. 10-22 May already familiar with Paris Match photo.

#MH17 Defence: Alleged maker of video S32 can no longer remember when made - more requests for satellite imagery and digital photos.

#MH17 Defence: Torez video. Investigating officer - what is time on metadata? Why were markings blurred? What is value of this video? Defence wants to examine investigating officer and person who recorded video.

#MH17 Defence: Regarding official image analysis of track trails by comparing 16th & 20th Geoserve satellite images around Forchette. (No images being available from the 17th). Wish to interview the investigating officer especially as contradictory to JIT inbound route.

#MH17 Defence: "Photo Snizhne" - at 14.27 Twitter message shows BUK Telar according to investigation. JIT based its investigation on KMI (Dutch Meteorological Institute) and the one-man Koreandefence.com.

Defence requests more details. Defence wishes to examine Twitter messager (no information in file) & police officers to see what investigations they did regard to who produced photo. Also to investigate person behind @girkingirkin

#MH17 Defence: Wish to analyse background of ukraine@war (now putin@war) which published video showing BUK at 17 July 18:44.04. JIT seems to suspect time was of posting not recording. Public Prosecution using this evidence but details of official report on this not in case file.

May be further requests regarding this video after it is examined for possible video manipulation.

Video Luhansk. Alleged outbound route. Minister of Interior Arsene Avakov link to YouTube video saying secret investigation units of MVD on 18th July filmed BUK. Video camera and 3 video files also provided on memory card to JIT. Would have been spotted by police officer.

Case file does not explain analysis - just a summary. There is apparently no visible video files on the SD card. Based on meta-data SD card used in a different camera - so SBU handed over wrong camera. Case file nonsensical on this point.

Officer 17248 who investigated SD card and camera and images and deleted files must be investigated. Also how it came that the SBU officer received the camera. Also Arsene Avakov must be investigated regarding this film and his apparent knowledge (YES!!!!)

That was a great way to end the day. Mr Arsene Avakov, Minister of the Interior at the time and closely associated with the Ukrainian "volunteer battalions," likely to be questioned as part of the #MH17 trial.

Six years after this article was written humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh1…