The Public Prosecution Service in the Netherlands has presented new evidence showing that the Malaysian passenger plane flight MH17 was shot down with a Russian BUK missile.
The new evidence is a response from the prosecutors in the mega-trial to defense requests to investigate alternative scenarios for the disaster by hearing witnesses. Four Russian and Ukrainian suspects stand trial before the court in the Netherlands: three in absentia and one represented by a Russian and two Dutch lawyers.
The defense lawyers have asked the court to investigate whether MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet, as long claimed by Russian propaganda from Moscow and pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine.
Promotion
At the hearing in the extra-secure court near Schiphol airport, the prosecutors showed some photos depicting metal fragments found in the recesses of the aircraft wreckage and the remains of MH17 victims.
Research shows that these metal fragments originate from the same BUK missile. Therefore, according to the Public Prosecution Service, the defense's investigative requests to determine if MH17 was shot down in an aerial battle by a fighter jet must be rejected.
However, the Public Prosecution Service agreed to the request for further investigation into the location from which the BUK missile was fired. Dutch justice assumes this took place from a farmland near Pervomaiskyi. Expert findings can then be compared.
In response to the defense lawyers’ investigative request, the prosecutors also presented new concrete evidence against the four suspects. This involves a wiretapped telephone conversation revealing that shortly after the downing of flight MH17, two of the four suspects believed they had shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet with their BUK missile. For example, on July 16, 2014, a day before the disaster, Pulatov hears from co-defendant Sergey Dubinskiy that a BUK is on its way and, once it arrives, will be immediately brought to Pulatov.
Furthermore, the Public Prosecution Service renewed its proposal to split the case against the four suspects. If Poelatov’s lawyers need more time, the case against the other three suspects tried in absentia can proceed.
The prosecutor stated that regarding the quality and reliability of secretly recorded conversations, it would be appropriate to hear from a Dutch police team leader. The recordings were provided by the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU and are therefore not automatically considered reliable by the defense.
The court will decide on July 3 which investigative requests will be granted.