Thread by @HRIMark

In the last 3 #MH17 court sessions, in laying out requests for further investigation, the defence showed the prosecution case is, at best, a shameful shambles.
Today the prosecution will attempt to stymie any real investigation into how & why the plane was downed.

#MH17 Judge: Counsel for the relatives has made a number of requests including witness statements of M58 & X48 (at firing location) & intercepts allegedly including the accused.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Defence has made over 200 requests for further investigation, with 80 left over from before.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Admits MOD employees wrongly described as reporting officers.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Never heard Pulatov talk about a sniping device or that he was 3km from firing location as defence claim.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Defence ignores war situation when it suits them. Prosecutor has not been rigid & has supported defence in many ways. Defence raises many points which don't have substance.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Combatant immunity no longer seems to be on the table, despite defence previously saying it would be investigated.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Requests to interview deceased persons is a mystery to us.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Investigation must be carried out if adds to fact-finding. Want to establish what happened & who responsible. If further investigation can throw more light we will go there.

#MH17 Prosecutor: The defence says they are a fact-finder but they are not a fact-finder. The fighter jet scenario was rejected by RF. The defence is the voice of Mr Pulatov but not an investigative body. There is no right to check everything.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Criteria to assess requests made - what required for defence & necessity criteria.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Does not accept defence reasons for delay in making requests for further investigation. Fact Pulatov is making a statement so late is his fault. He could have spoken earlier. Should have submitted requests for further investigation earlier.

Prosecutor: Does not accept defence reasons for delay in making requests for further investigation. Fact Pulatov is making a statement so late is his fault. He could have spoken earlier. Should have submitted requests for further investigation earlier.

Prosecutor: Pulatov said long ago he hadn't seen contrail. His position already known so requests could have been made earlier.

#MH17 Prosecutor: Have sympathy for defence that because of anonymity entire interviews are not available. But under Dutch law investigating judge ascertains how reliable anonymous witnesses are & writes report on this. Court isn't allowed to rely entirely on anonymous witnesses.

Prosecutor: Use of anonymous witnesses is fine, fairness of case not decided by use of anonymous witnesses but must be seen in the round.

Prosecutor: Requests for further interviews of anonymous witnesses shouldn't be allowed.

Prosecutor: Regarding requests for interviews of experts, these should have been made in June, August or September. Information to be gathered from interviews must be specified.

Prosecutor: Questions regarding NFI experts' expertise shouldn't be allowed as there is lots of information on their expertise in open sources.

Prosecutor: Questions regarding possible contamination (ie whether influence of others had an effect) not relevant regarding DSB report as everyone was aware of its results. Defence hasn't shown concrete indications of contamination.

Prosecutor: Given lack of specificity & lateness of requests, requests to interview experts should be denied

Prosecution: Regarding alleged bias on BUK missile. Lots of work on other weapons been done. Defence need to specify which other weapons should be analysed.

Prosecutor: Butterfly shape can be easily seen. No expert knowledge needed.

Prosecutor: Regarding layers of aluminium on metal fragments. These questions are answered in case file.

Prosecutor: This it the prop in the groove. Oh no - my collegue says it isn't - its another part. I've missed a page.

Prosecutor: DSB report can't be used as evidence against Pulatov or others but can be used as exculpatory evidence.

Prosecutor: Unclear if external reports which are annexes to the DSB report can be used as evidence. Prosecution sees no reason to use them so no point in questions of TNO experts.

Prosecution: Still awaiting report from Almaz Antey.

Prosecution: Regarding meeting minutes between NLR & RMA on arena test. Prosecution not aware of any such document. Should have been asked for before.

Relatives solicitor: Wishes to get response from prosecution to their requests.

Prosecutor: This afternoon will show why almost all requests made by the defence should be rejected.

Prosecutor: Regarding Pulatov's request for interviews & details of interceptions. Not agreeing with incriminating statement not enough for witness to be reinterviewed. Further interview must elucidate something & be relevant to hearing. Mustn't be fishing expedition.

Prosecutor: Defendant must focus on matters concerning him & not others. Investigating judge has already assessed as far as possible the reliability of the witnesses.

Prosecutor: All requests for witness interviews should be rejected.

Prosecutor: None of the witnesses regarding launch site have made statements against Pulatov.

S21 (removing BUK from Snizhne) S07, S27 (Saw Telar in Donetsk no personal knowledge of launch site) - witnesses to the route. None said anything about Pulatov or launch site.

Prosecutor: S21 has been interviewed 3 times by JIT. No longer necessary.

Prosecutor: Regarding BUK witnesses Pulatov wants to reinterview witnesses. But just because witnesses saw the BUK convoy on a different day isn't exculpatory (!)

Prosecutor: Investigating judge has excluded some of evidence for "security reasons." No reason why this should change.

Prosecutor: Regarding journalists - no interest in interviewing them - as they don't mention Pulatov.

Prosecutor: Re Max van der Werrf: Not sure how his statement could be useful as he says he didn't interview people who had seen nothing, but he says they all saw nothing.

Prosecutor: Pulatov can't have been where he said he was & 3km from firing site. Marinovka is further away (8.6km).

Prosecution: Pulatov wants to question owner & employee of company regarding Volvo truck & whether it was hired by the Ukrainian army prior to day of shoot-down - but any prior information about the Volvo is irrelevant to Pulatov.

Prosecution: S21 should not be interviewed and neither should any witnesses to S21's reliability.

Prosecutor: Pulatov does not have an interest in getting transmission mast data. May cause risks for some people to release telecom data. Should be denied.

HRI comment: the prosecution are going all-in in trying to deny the defence lawyers any possibility of questioning either alleged witnesses or experts on their knowledge or reliability over either the role of Pulatov or the JIT's overall theory of the case.

Prosecutor: Doesn't understand why defence is asking about information regarding BUK imagery now. Not necessary to defence. Investigation either carried out or should be rejected. (!!)

Prosecutor: Regarding report suggesting BUKs in Russia and East Ukraine are the same includes links to sources so defence doesn't need to interview author.

Prosecutor: Defence wants to interview makers & distributors of BUK videos. Relevant statements already made. No need for reinterviews. Images of Tores etc only of secondary value anyway.

Prosecutor: Donetsk photo - sender of photo had chat convo with member of Bellingcat which was sent by email by sender. The sender is not known. Questioning him would not add anything of substance.

Prosecutor: No reason to interview Australian journalist or maker of Paris Match video.

Prosecutor: Investigators will be appointed from "geo-politically neutral" Sweden to investigate Snizhne video.

Prosecutor: There is no launch site on Snizhne video & Pulatov not mentioned

Prosecutor: Numerous witnesses requested re Lugansk video including Avakov. Prosecution could leave this file out & would change nothing about launch location so not relevant.

Prosecutor: Defence asks regarding image of smoke trail. If had been done in time then it would have been OK but request for investigation comes so late shouldn't be allowed.

Prosecutor: Regarding intercepts, defence wants to ask experts about code words. It is clear that code words were used & secure lines also used. Prosecution agrees with this. But can't make far-reaching conclusions. In this case see people often communicate openly when shouldn't.

Prosecutor: Pulatov has an interest in interview with Semonov but not necessary as lots of other evidence.

Prosecutor: Re social media - unknown if actual sightings or "hearsay" but this is irrelevant as we have times and dates of posting. Pulatov already questioned these social media postings long ago so no necessity for these interviews.

Prosecutor: Re scorched section on field. Source information seems to have been missed by defence. So no need to interview satellite analyst.

Prosecutor: re Chinese satellite images - JIT tried to get hold of them but Chinese said that satellite was there but it wasn't operational.

Prosecutor: Re European Space Agency images - heavy cloud cover at the time. Public prosecution can answer questions about selection of images , not ESA.

Prosecutor: ESA images consistent with dashcam video.

Prosecutor: Re soil samples - defence wants to question 3 NFI experts about chemical traces. NFI thinks nothing to be learnt from them but Pulatov wonders if reference samples really from a BUK firing location. Prosecutor says further investigation could add nothing.

Prosecutor: Defence wants details of person providing tube (part of missile) - but this can't be disclosed without putting them in danger.

Prosecutor: Defence wants radar data. Not clear that S26 can provide that information, or how follows from S26 statement that Ukraine has any other relevant radar data. Ukrainian authorities say they do not have any other relevant radar data.

Prosecutor: Pulatov should ask for Russian data which the Russians haven't provided. (Russians say data not stored).

Prosecutor: Tomorrow will discuss Pulatov's witness statement & requests by defence to interview members of 53rd Brigade as well as requests by relatives of the victims.

HRI comment on #MH17 case: According to the ECHR an accused has the right "to examine or have examined witnesses against him & to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.”
echr.coe.int/documents/guid…