The #MH17 trial will be continuing shortly, with Judge Hendrik Steenhuis replying to the defence's requests for further investigation & prosecution's attempts to prevent further investigation.
This is a crucial stage of the pre-trial process as the defence have demonstrated that the JIT "investigation" was focused on finding evidence to back up the "Russia did it" narrative rather than properly investigating the case.
With the parts of the case file presented to them not even containing enough information, according to the counsel for the relatives, to support their civil case, it is clear a comprehensive reinvestigation is necessary.
The judge is arguing the defence has been slow in making their requests for further investigation. He says this is a factor to be considered in deciding whether to accept a request for further investigation. (HRI: This is ridiculous).
Judge: The court will not support a "fishing expedition." Judge is mainly considering the completeness of the information presented - different to the actual judgement phase.
Judge: A repeated request to investigate which has already failed can be ruled meaningless. Also meaningless to reinterview a witness if unqualified or already replied.
Judge: Task of prosecution to investigate different scenarios. Main scenario has to be proven. If Public Prosecution Service does not establish scenario then acquittal will follow. Defence doesn't need to prove alternative scenario.
Judge: Possible that the same facts can support a different scenario to the main scenario. (HRI: This is our theory)
Judge: Need to take cognisance of the fact that in a conflict situation witness statements can be coloured by bias & also memories fade over such a time. So judge has to assess whether witnesses are relevant.
Judge: Due to need for expeditiousness for interests of defence & prosecution sometimes only a number of requests will be allowed on a particular point.
Judge: Defendant (Pulatov) has only disagreed with main scenario as far as it affects himself & says he doesn't know what happened.
Judge: If main scenario can't be proved then this will lead directly to acquittal. So the question is whether the alternative scenarios need to be investigated.
Judge: The case file already includes a great amount of exculpatory material (such as statements about fighter jets).
Judge: No rulings will be made regarding requests to do with alternative scenarios. There will be no further investigation of warplane scenario.
Kharchenko statement should be added to file.
Judge: Regarding investigation into BUK damage pattern etc. NFI expert can be questioned as relates to main scenario.
Judge: Regarding recovery of wreckage. Defence wish to interview people about how items recovered & brought to Netherlands. Request rejected.
Judge: Now latest set of requests. Was it a BUK missile? Defence wants to know what importance to attach to assessments by reporting officers. Request rejected. Defence want to know about possible bias & methodology. Request rejected as insufficient reasons given.
Judge: Complete understanding of forensic evidence necessary so NFI expert should be questioned about what he said in NFI report 111 only.
Judge: Re Interviewing Australian investigator - rejected. Also rejected further investigation of cockpit frame.
Judge: Re Was BUK launched from near Pervamais'ke? Context is war, much information has been released, very difficult to verify information. The forensic investigation more important than witness statements. Direct evidence more important than indirect.
Judge: In relation to firing site grants request to question Witness S40 as observations near site. Will partially grant 53rd AA Brigade questioning.
Judge: Re: In and outbound route. More likelihood to be accepted if involve personal involvement of defendant. COurt will grant requests to question witnesses re supermarket. Some not considered reliable so won't be allowed.
Judge: Re images of route. Court finds insufficient interest for defence in questioning those who made materials or who investigated and attempted to verify them. Court thinks there should be technical investigation into the unusual shadow regarding BUK.
Judge: Defence requires telecom data. Will be allowed as far as some witnesses concerned.
Judge: Defence has interest in hearing Dubinsky & Semonov. Dubinsky interview will be allowed. Semonov denied as not possible within a reasonable length of time.
Judge: Will allow witnesses around assumed firing location & owner of field near alleged "firing site."
Judge: Did the defendant have a role? Defendant denies any role & has no direct knowledge. Defence has made a number of requests re telecom data, voice recognition & editing and manipulation.
Judge: Pulatov does not contest location data of phones attributed to him. Also doesn't contest used phone no ending 511. But it is necessary to investigate further if Pulatov did take part in conversations attributed to him on 17th July (which is only evidence against him).
Judge: Regarding Girkin - possible he will give a witness statement. Everyone happy for Dubinsky to testify. Up to investigating judge if possible to interview Kharchenko & Girkin in reasonable time. Also wishes to see that commander of 53rd Brigade is interviewed.
Judge: Invites defendant to attend hearing to answer questions. Therefore will not make any questions in writing. (!!)
Judge: Counsel for relatives want to see intercepts and know more about the circumstances before the downing. The Court therefore orders a single complete copy of the file be provided to the relatives solicitors (not to be distributed further).
Judge: Relatives want to share settlement agreement as this is required if they wish to claim compensation in this case.
Judge: Dubinsky interview to be added to file.
Judge: Now end of pre-trial phase as now clear what investigating judge remains to investigate. Still possible for new requests but only under strict conditions.
Judge: Main questions are:
1) Was BUK used?
2) Was it fired from field near Pervomaiske?
3) Were defendants involved?
1) Was BUK used?
2) Was it fired from field near Pervomaiske?
3) Were defendants involved?
Judge:
Orders: Investigation into whether defendant involved in conversations. Up to investigating judge on scope of investigations.
Orders: Investigation into whether defendant involved in conversations. Up to investigating judge on scope of investigations.
Judge: Hearing adjourned - today's decisions will be published maybe as early as next week with English language version to follow.
#MH17 the next hearing will be 1 February 2021 with the full detail of today's decisions published soon. In the meantime a lot of responsibility lies with the (anonymous) investigating judge and how assiduously they follow up on the further investigations required.
It seems quite possible the #MH17 trial is going to end with acquittals on the basis that the "main scenario" presented by the prosecution is not proven.
A lot of the blame for this will fall on the shoulders of those who insisted to know the truth based on insufficient evidence & actively refused to consider alternative theories.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
