Thread by @HRIMark

#MH17 Hearing: After yesterday's dramatic events (

https://twitter.com/hrimark/status/1324034178300739586

) the defence today continues with its requests for further investigation.

#MH17 Defence: Need to look at satellite images (as did officer 17476) to try and determine if the field near Pervamaiske was the firing location. Images supplied by Geoserve & analysed using QGIS. Image quality poor and images small so defence wishes to question 17476.

#MH17 Defence: Report does not demonstrate 17476 has sufficient expertise in development of fires. Quality of official report images so poor serious study of the matter is not possible - original images should be incorporated in case file.

#MH17 Defence: When studying alleged inbound route defence found that underlying official reports are mentioned in overview in case file but are not actually included in the case file, despite the fact they are obviously important.

#MH17 Defence: Hard to understand what criteria the prosecution used to exclude official reports which are referred to in the case file but not incorporated in the case file.

#MH17 Defence: Regarding AP journalists seeing 7 tanks & a BUK outside Snizhne. An official report regarding this is referred to in the case file but included in the case file. Defence requests court orders official documents mentioned in overview be included in the case file.

#MH17 Defence: Defence wishes to question officer responsible for the overview regarding why documents are not included.

#MH17 Defence: Dutch Meteorological Institute (KMI) reports drawn up by Mr R Slaughter(?) regarding video. He was told probable location and date & only asked about time of day. Defence want to find out about methods & start information given to see how valid his conclusions are.

#MH17 Defence: It seems from document in case file that KMI report only has validity where fits prosecution case but not where contradicts this.

#MH17 Defence: Satellite images from Google Earth included in the report not checked for timings. Defence wants to ask rapporteur only had 4 images to study. Regarding MSG satellite. In ESA reports it is stated no satellite images for 17th are available, contradicting KMI report.

#MH17 Defence: During talks with DLR (National investigation Service) it was decided by rapporteur to accept that images were taken on morning of 18th. Defence wants to know why. (HRI comment: Presumably regarding Lugansk BUK video)

#MH17 Defence: In file on inbound report 2 reports from European Space agency (ESA). They say ESA had access to civilian but not military systems. But ESA were given a narrow remit. Examined 42 locations given by Dutch police - no information on why these locations included.

#MH17 Defence: Report says only launch location considered was cultivated field. All civilian sources used with exception of satellite operated by Chinese Space Agency. Rapporteur claims ESA reported nothing unusual is found at launch site and says this is down to cloud cover.

Not sure what "GAO Wen Fen China" means. Might Chinese satellite agency have vital information to the case.

What is the real situation regarding heat scanning satellite? Seems confusion over used or not in ESA report.

"Points of interest" don't seem to include launch site. May have been looking for BUK but this is not stated in report.

Several reports by same rapporteurs. Regarding dashcam video which Dutch police provided to ESA. Is ESA report reliable as far as Volvo truck is concerned? ESA image analysis not compatible with JIT. Are they actually compatible - need to see original photos.

Defence: 3 reports by NFI. 3 investigators (Herz ? Baum). They say have no previous experience so used military advisers Jack de Kleiner & Alex de Rezin(?). But they also had no previous experience.

These experts found 18 characteristics common to Makeevka highway BUK and BUK found in Russia. Clear from their report they were really struggling to come to conclusions.

They said that that discrepancies found - they said no evidentiary value can be provided by discrepencies. They also find other discrepencies which they don't know what to make of. Important to ask investigators about likelihood of the BUKs being the same.

Regarding inbound and outbound imagery. Not sure what expertise investigators, which investigators involved and start information provided. Discrepancy found regarding orientation of loading ramps for low loader. Nevertheless NFI says "no reason imagery is impossible."

Defence needs to question these investigators to find out scope of investigation and how performed.

JIT found incompatible shadow on Donetsk BUK because of Russian press conference. KMI produced report saying anomalous shadow & could be a sign of image manipulation. Seems to be contradiction over dates of research so additional excluded reports should be included.

HRI comment: Today's exposition is extremely important as the whole basis of the JIT conduct of the investigation has been that the BUK on Russia & the BUK in East Ukraine are one & the same. But it seems this contention does not arise from the expert reports in the case file.

It seems that, on the contrary, the expert reports struggle to find an explanation for the discrepancies between the BUK images.

Defence: The charge says the missile was launched from near Pervomaiskyi - obviously important to establish if that was the case. Wish to speak to witness S01 as a great deal of what he is claimed to have said has been redacted.

(Defence shows interview transcript has been largely blacked out)

Defence: Pulatov has given his location at time of downing at around 3km from alleged firing location & he said he heard no BUK missile. So defence wish to question all witnesses near where the defendant was.

Defence wants to question Kharchenko who S021 says was at the checkpoint near the launch point.

Defence quotes Max van der Werff who visited the local area as saying no one saw a smoke trail on the 17th. Defence wishes to interview Max.

Defence wants court to instruct prosecution to provide metadata (telecomms data) or, if not available, investigating judge to gather metadata of eyewitnesses.

Defence wants to question G273 (a journalist) about his on-scene investigations which were used by prosecution. Also owner & neighbours should be questioned.

Defence wants to question those "reporting officers" who found non-aircraft parts found at crash site. Major parts of these statements are redacted (!). Still unclear who these people are. The prosecution calls them "reporting officers" but they aren't (!)

It seems a lot of documents in the case file are by "reporting officers" & it is unsure if they have any authorisation to act in any official investigative capacity.

Appears the prosecution has been presenting people as investigative officers who aren't and has been trying to block the defence from finding out whether or not these people have investigative authority.

Defence: Regarding finding of a tube - no investigation seems to have been made into who found it and reliability of that source and whether it has any evidentiary value. Are finder and indicator the same person?

Re US satellite images - request has been made but no formal reaction. Defence says it is absolutely necessary these are added to file.

Re radar data - defence there must be more radar data, especially more raw data. Prosecution say they have no more. Should be more in Ukraine. Defence requests requests for radar data be maintained.

Defence says it is inexplicable that the Dutch OM has made so little attempt to get hold of raw radar data.

Defence: Radar data would be rock hard evidence. (HRI comment - maybe there we have the reason why the OM isn't trying very hard to get hold of it).

Defence: Ukraine's systems should have registered BUK shot on the 17th through picking up radar of BUK Telar. There is information that this is the case but there is no detail about who, where etc. Also need information about AWACS which should have picked up alleged BUK launch.

Case file includes official MIVD notice that possible firing site recognised 5 km south of Snizhne. However without further investigation evidentiary value of this is zero. No idea where come from or of reliability. If court disagrees then defence wants further investigation.

Defence: Regarding soil samples from alleged launch site. Prosecution thinks these are pointless. However when you read the case file you can see more can be found than the prosecution would like people to believe.

Defence: There have been 4 related investigations & two documents are missing from file & 3 investigators need to be questioned. In July 2015 comparative soil samples were taken in Kramatorsk to see if traces of launches left. No report as to whether Dutch investigators present.

6 Ukrainians were present including 2 SBU officers. Samples were given, telling NFI they were from somewhere a BUK was launched from. NFI found no residue from a BUK launch so no further sampling was done. But no evidence the reference samples were really from BUK launch location

NFI states small grains of aluminium oxide can be left at launch location so inexplicable soil samples from alleged launch sites weren't tested.

Also, why were soil samples taken by journalist from scene not checked for rocket fuel traces?

Defence requests copy of forensic report previously denied by prosecution (under the excuse it didn't contain any useful conclusion.)

Defence: Adding request to interview owner of field (should be in Ukrainian land registry & easy to access for JIT) and who lives around the field.

Defence: If the court should find BUK was fired from Pervamaiske (which isn't possible based on the file currently) then did the defendant have any role? Only basis is telephone intercepts (if this isn't case Prosecution should state this).

Defence: Regarding alleged client contribution, intercept files. Client has explained why telephone conversations completely misunderstood by JIT.

Defence: Re conversation between Kariz (person A) and client (person B). Client says he isn't party B - doesn't recognise his voice. Can't say if isn't him or was manipulated. Possible there are other conversations which have been incorrectly assigned to Pulatov.

Defence wants linguistic expert report & would like to examine Kariz.

Defence: Kharshenko & B (allegedly Pulatov) conversation mentioning toy. JIT say toy is BUK. Pulativ denies that. Regarding Dubinsky conversation re Strela defence wish to interview Dubinsky re meaning of conversation.

Defence: 20:49 Dubinsky conversation. Defence wish to interview Dubinsky re intention of conversation. Also defence want to question participants in other conversations to determine real meaning.

Defence wishes to interview Girkin to confirm there was no cooperation with Pulatov or orders given re BUK. JIT never asked Girkin about this (!). Also wish to interview other separatists in conversations especially regarding Pulatov's role in organising tanks, not BUK.

Defence wish to interview 53rd Brigade members (as JIT claims Pulatov was talking to them.) Need to establish who is user of number ending 335 which JIT claim was crew member. Wishes to interview local separatists to ascertain who user of number ending 335 was.

If MH17 downed by BUK by separatists important to discover why. Prosecution think it was intention to down a military aircraft (error scenario). Prosecution has ruled out there were fighter planes but this nonsense as it would have been clear to crew MH17 wasn't a fighter.

Defence: Prosecution think punishment can be meted out to Pulatov without knowing who the crew were & what their intentions were. But in error scenario there would be an absence of intent & also there could also be a self-defence situation.

Defence: Need to know why BUK was fired, what instructions given as client is being charged in connection with those instructions.
If defending from fighter, crew could claim self-defence & there would be no punishability for Pulatov.

Defence: According to case file S38 is a relevant witness. But not even a single sentence or summary of what this witness said is in the case file.

Defence: Just because individuals don't want to turn up in court as suspects doesn't mean they aren't happy to answer questions re MH17.

Defence: Dutch government has explained decision re interstate complaint to ECHR saying fits in with court case. Clear the Dutch government has accepted that MH17 was shot down with a BUK and Russia responsible.
Prosecution has provided information to Dutch government.

Defence: Defence doesn't know what information from case file was given by prosecution to Dutch government. The factual assumptions underlying the interstate complaint unknown to defence.

If prosecution has translated documents into English these should be provided to defence in interests of efficiency.
Prosecution has failed to answer questions about interstate prosecution & as this is directly relevant to admissibility of whole prosecution should do so.

MH17 Judge: Next hearing next Thursday 12th 10am for prosecution answers to defence's investigation requests.