MH17: ?

, ! .

» MH17: ? »  »  + MH17 " JIT"

+ MH17 " JIT"

1 19 19



In this article the contents of four leaked MH17 Joint Investigation Team documents are analysed by me on behalf of Bonanza Media:
DOC 1. Is a Record Of Interview (ROI) between an officer of the Australian Federal Police and journalist Billy Six.


DOC 1.

One of the unpublished documents is a Record Of Interview (ROI) between an officer of the Australian Federal Police and journalist Billy Six. The latter confirmed to me he was interviewed a day before the Dutch Safety Board held a press conference on 13 October 2015. This information matches with the transcript mentioning 12 October 2015 as the date of the ROI, a strong indication that the batch of JIT documents leaked to us is authentic.
The full 15 page record can be read here (PDF link).
The words Not to be shared with Ukraine might come as a surprise for some, but exactly the same precondition I made before agreeing to be interviewed by Dutch officers of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team myself. The officers assured me Ukraine will have no access to my data.


Between 22 April 2015 and 2 July 2015 in the matter of AFP Case Reference No. 5667342 (Operation AVENELLA) took place. Imagery specialist Shaun Ellis and geospatial specialist Tim Johns from Australia examined four images related to this operation.
Metadata and assessments mentioned in their report.


NOTE: Metadata contains General: Image, Video and Audio information. Metadata should only be used as a guide as data fields can be altered manually. The following extraction has been selected for this report:

File Name: Donetsk01.jpg
File type: JPEG file
File size: 470 kb
Dimensions: 1380 x 945
Date created: 24/07/2014, 1:41:30PM
Modified: 24/07/2014, 7:42:38PM

File Name: Donetsk02.jpg
File type: JPEG file
File size: 303 kb
Dimensions: 940 x 626
Date created: 30/06/2015, 10:53:51PM
Modified: 19/08/2014, 10:41:42PM

File Name: Snizhne01.jpg
File type: JPEG file
File size: 157 kb
Dimensions: 800 x 1423
Date created: 30/06/2015, 10:54:09PM
Modified: 20/08/2014, 12:09:08PM

File Name: Torez.jpg
File type: JPEG file
File size: 130 kb
Dimensions: 1024 x 768
Date created: 30/06/2015, 10:54:09PM
Modified: 18/07/2014, 5:52:04PM

The extracted metadata from these four files appears to have been  manipulated. For example, the date modified is prior to the date the file was created. Various reasons could explain why this is so, none can be proved without additional information. The image dimensions vary suggesting that the images have been cropped. The image files are small also suggesting the files have been resaved to be smaller and are not primary images that were taken.

End quote.
Lets split up this information in smaller bits and have a closer look.

Files Donetsk02.jpg, Snizhne01.jpg and Torez.jpg have been created 30 June 2015. That is two days before the end of Operation AVENELLA. Writers of the report surely would have mentioned if the images were created later than they conducted their analysis. Therefore it is fair to assume the image files were analyzed by them after 30 June 2015.

Thus two questions come to mind:

Why nearly a year passed before the Australian police obtained and analyzed these images?

Why would the Australian police waste precious time and resources analyzing four non primary images?

The Donetsk01.jpg was published by the French magazine Paris Match in small format on 23 July 2014, eight days after the tragedy. The Donetsk02.jpg was also published by Paris Match on 25 July 2014.

That these are non primary images is very obvious since the Paris Match logo was inserted into the originals and had then to be resaved.

More important, Paris Match star reporter Alfred de Montesquiou claimed the first published image was taken in Snizhne he later had to correct to Donetsk, about 70 kilometers to the west. Then the story changed again and it was explained that not a Paris Match journalist but a freelancer had taken the images, which later again was changed into the story that a hired driver of the French journalists crew had taken a video and went back to the hotel in Donetsk to show it to the French who initially did not pay much attention to it.

Who is this driver?

Why Paris Match only published two images but not the video?

And, why were the Australians analyzing non primary images/screenshots and not the originals from Paris Match even a year after the tragedy?
The Snizhne01.jpg image analyzed by the AFP team has dimensions 800 x 1423.

Visually identical image (with dimensions 337 x 600 pixels) was posted on Twitter on 17 July 2014 by an anonymous account named GirkinGirkin. Aspect ratios of 800 x 1423 and 337 x 600 are the same.

Note. The process of downsizing photos reduces the pixel count used by objects in the photo. Together with artifcial noise, this process can be used to conceal some of the objects details. Most importantly, if something was added to the photo with Photoshop and had flaws visible to the naked eye, resizing it to a smaller size may either hide the flaws or make them less obvious.
In the documentary MH17 Call for Justice a witness testifies and explains why image Torez.jpg could not have been taken on 17 July 2014.

Same questions as for Snizhne01.jpg:

Where is the original image, when was it taken, who took it?


Why is the date modified prior to the date the file was created?

For more detailed information about issues with these four images I refer to examinations of evidence from social media by Sergey Mastepanov published June 2015 and October 2015.


DOC 3. WITNESS TESTIMONY (refuting the claim Ukrainian Air Force did not fly)
Record Of Interview Nr 26DLPRPrimo4905 was conducted by a Dutch police officer on 28 July 2015. Interviewee is a male witness from Ukraine. Prior to the interview the witness has sent an email on 2 April 2015 with following content:
Good day. I want to tell you something about that happened in the town of Torez last summer. It was 17 July around 17:00hrs (I cannot exactly recall) local time. At that point in time I was beside my house in the village of Krupskoje (This village comes under the town of Torez). There was military activity at the time, aircraft were circling overhead all day (fighter jets of the Ukrainian BBC (remark translator: airforce).
Before that Boeing fell down, I heard a very loud bang over my head. I saw that the sky was overcast. Between the clouds I saw something falling down. I focussed on this object and when the airplane was no longer in the clouds I saw it was an airliner coming down. A couple of minutes before the fall, I saw a fighter jet in the sky, which circled over the town. No missiles were fired from the surface, in the town.
This photograph that served as evidence of the missile is erroneous, since the photograph showed different weather conditions. Because at that time the sky was rather heavily overcast. The position of the sun in that photograph is unlike the sun you see at 17:00hrs. In the evening. I can clarify this / tell you in a simpler way, at that moment no sun could be seen because of the clouds. In the photograph you can see my village, in the centre, store nr. 95 and the MTC tower (remark translator: MTC = telephone antenna of company from Moscow).
*privacy sensitive information deleted by me*
That photo was taken from the location of a lot of farms. After this Boeing went down, I went with my father to the crash site by car. When we arrived, everything was cordonned off and we were not allowed to go further. In the ploughed field next to the road I saw 2 naked dead bodies. I cannot tell anything else about this.
Comment: The reporting officer contacted the witness by telephone in presence of a Russian interpreter on 28 July 2015. The witness speaks Russian only and an interpreter translates everything the witness and the criminal officer say.

C = criminal investigator
W = witness
I = interpreter


C :How many airplanes did he see?

I :How many aircraft were in the air at that moment?

W :Two airplanes were audible, not the big one, the Boeing, but fighter jets were audible since these were constantly flying overhead, the noise had already become familiar.

I :Two fighter jets, that is what I could clearly hear, so not the sound of the Boeing. Why? Because where we live the fighter jets were in the sky on a daily basis, so then you immediately recognize them as fighter jets.

C :And this sound was not different from the fighter jets?

I :Did the sound resemble the sound of fighter jets or didnt it?

W :The exact sound of fighter jets and it was not on its own, there were two of them.

I :It was the sound of fighter jets.

W :One of them [interpreter: fighter jets]

I :Hold on, please, the sound of fighter jets. There were two fighter jets in the sky

I :What else? Please continue what you stated.

W :The sound of fighter jets flying overhead, and after thatat some point they were, I was outside at that point, there was a bang overhead, a very loud bang. And after that I deliberately started gazing at the sky, at what [had] exploded over my head and I saw a vapor trail in the sky. Whether the smoke came from the airplane or from a missile, or was from a missile.. [interpreter inaudible] but in between the clouds..was just a trail.

I :I have not been able to understand this. You said: was the smoke..the trail came from the airplane or from a missile, you were unable to tell?

W :Yes, it was a trail, I saw it between the clouds, there were heavy clouds.

I :One moment you saw a trail in the clouds. One moment.

I :So, fighter jets in the sky, I could clearly hear that. At some point there was a bang. I was outside at that moment and was obviously curious to know where that sound came from. I looked up to the sky, it was very cloudy that day, and I saw a clear trail, but I do not know if it was the trail of an airline or a missile, I do not know this. But I could clearly see a trail.

C :What exactly does he mean when he says a trail? Can he describe the sound of the explosion?

I :You were telling about a trail. What kind of trail was that? Could you describe it? And the sound of the explosion, can you describe that as well? So in short: the sound and the trail.

W :It was a loud bang, a heavy bang, can I describe that more clearlythis here in the chest was thumping, a very loud bang, not clear but rather muffled [interpreter: subdued??], a muffled loud bang.

I :One moment, a loud bang, but it was somewhat muffled, as if it was a thump, not likeclear, but really a muffled bang. And what about the trail?

W :The trail was, if youI saw this from the ground, which was roughly about 200 meters. If youlook at the trail from the ground. And it was white.

I :What colour?

W :It was white.

I :Clear in white.
W :Not dark or turbidnot grey but in white.

I :So you were looking up and you saw a white-coloured trail, about 200 meters in length. Did I understand that correctly?

W :Yes.

I :I looked up in the sky and saw a white-coloured trail of about 200 meters in length, so it was not gray or what have you, it was white.

W :White. Was it horizontal or vertical trail?

I :This trail. What was the line of the trail in the sky, was it horizontal or vertical?

W :The trail was horizontal, but not in a line, it was already blurred, maybe because I saw it too late. The trail of..a bit was no longer straight line.

I :That was not a line, it was already a bit blurred, as if all of it had dispresed a bit, may be I saw the trail late, I dont know, but I did not see one straight line, but [it was] rather a bit blurry.

W :Matches the photograph this gentleman forwarded, of which he said that photograph cannot be fully correct as there where heavier clouds [remark translator Dutch-English: this is probably the criminal investigator speaking, not the witness]

I :You sent us a photograph, correct?

W :Yes, I sent that photograph to refute the allegation that it could have been launched from my village. From a Buk or something like that.
*privacy sensitive information deleted by me*

I :That is my village.
*privacy sensitive information deleted by me*
And I sent that photograph especially to refute the allegations that the missiles was supposedly launched from my village.


W :The trail I have told you about, wether that was the trail of a missile or of an airplane was not clear to me. With my eyes I searched for the cause. I looked at the sky and saw this plane coming down.

I :Do you refer to the Boeing?

W :Yes, I saw the Boeing and how it was falling down from the sky. I saw it crashing down, the smoke coming from the airplane went up.. black smoke. I saw something after it [interpreter: airplane] had come down, it looked like strips of ribbons, they came down.

I :Ribbons?

W :Ribbons, long white ribbons.

I :one moment. So, a loud bang, I looked up and saw [interpreter: inaudible] some kind of trail from a missile or an aircraft, I cannot define it. I saw the Boeing falling down, so basically from the sky it came down and I saw black smoke and after the aircraft had crashed, I saw white ribbons in the sky, they were also falling down.


Connection was cut due to technical problems.

End of transcription.

This is the image the witness sent by email to the Investigation team. He mistakenly thinks on internet is claimed a missile was fired from his village (visible in the image) while the appointed launch location is about nine kilometers away near the village of Pervomaiskyi.
Map: left bottom crash site Grabovo, white line is line of sight from where image was taken to the alleged launch field. Witness lives in village Krupskoie, which lies exactly on the line of sight and right behind the village is the highest point which blocks the view of whats behind it.

Important is what the witness saw and heard himself, he:

reports 2 fighter jets in the sky, which circled over the town a few minutes before the Boeing went down.
heard a loud bang over his head, looked at the sky and saw a HORIZONTAL white trail. (unclear remains in what direction he looked when he saw the trail)
watched the Boeing coming down
describes long white ribbons coming down after the crash. This matches with what has been reported by the Dutch Safety Board (appendix K page 73) and identified as textile rolls.


DOC 4. LETTER about BUK Positions (Russian and Ukranian)
Letter from the Dutch Military Information and Investigation Service legal affairs department addressed to the public prosecutor at the National Prosecutors Office on Counter Terrorism.
Date 21 September 2016
Re Official Notice

Herewith I am informing, pursuant to Section 38 of the Intelligence and Securty Services Act 2002, of data that is possibly of importance for the criminal investigation into the crashing of flight MH17.

In addition to my official notice of 24 June 2015 MIVD has, on the basis of reliable sources and analyses of locations relating to the 9K37M1 Buk-M1 (SA-11A GADFLY) that were listed in the official notice of 24 June 2015, examined whether 9A310M1 radar and launch vehicles on these locations could have been involved in the downing of MH17.

In addition, MIVD looked into the other ground based air defence systems present in the region in July 2014 and that were, as far as operational deployability, specifications, performance and location goes, capable of hitting flight MH17.
In July 2014 the Ukrainian armed forces had operational S-300PS Volkhov-M6 systems (referred to as SA-10B GRUMBLE by NATO) at their disposal.
In July 2014 operational S-300 PM2 Favorit [systems] (referred to as SA-20B GARGOY by NATO) of the Russian armed forces were present the border region with Ukraine.

The table below lists the 9K37M1 Buk-M1 systems (referred to as SA-11A GADFLY by Nato) mentioned in my official notice of 24 June 2015, including their operational status, deployability and distance to the point of impact with flight MH17

9K37M1 Buk-M1 Air Defence Systems present in the region (range 42km).

COUNTRY                  LOCATION                          DATE 2014         DISTANCE

1  Ukraine   483638.00″N 391400.00″E        No                 67 km

2 Ukraine   48558.00″N 374513.00″E            No                  66 km

3 Ukraine  47 625.00″N 372828.00″E            No                  135 km

4 Ukraine   451311.00″N 332242.00″E        June + July     515 km

5 Ukraine   49 034.00″N 371842.00″E        June + July     137 km

6 Ukraine   484223.00″N 37381.00″E          June + July     98 km

7 Ukraine   481314.00″N 36 120.00″E           June + July     191 km

8 Ukraine   475812.00″N 363426.00″E        June + July     154 km

9 Russia     484414.00″N 40 136.00″E           11 19 July      122 km

10 Russia   483854.00″N 395018.00″E      From 18 July    106 km

11 Russia    481751.00″N 40 442.00″E          From 20 July   108 km

From the table it becomes apparent that flight MH17 was flying beyond the range of all identified and operational Ukrainian and Russian locations where 9K37M1 Buk M1 systems were deployed.

In view of the locations of the systems identified and the speed with which these can be moved, as well as the nature, development and conflict and border zone of the fight against the separatists on July 2014 it is unlikely that a 9A310M1 launch vehicle originating from the Ukrainian armed forces could have been moved in time for flight MH17 to come within its range and be hit.

All operational Ukrainian S-300PS Volkov-M6 identified were at least 250 kms away from the point were MH17 was hit. The S-300PS Volkov-M6 system has a maximum range of 75kms. On this basis MIVD draws the conclusion that S-300PS Volkhov-M6 system was not used for the downing of flight MH17.

The only operational system identified with a range wide enough to shoot down flight MH17 concerned two Russian S-300PM2 Favorit systems near the Russian town of Rostov na Donu. MIVD does have (partner) information that would indicate the use of the 36N85 (referred to as TOMB STONE by NATO) fire control radar for the guidance of and/or launch of a surface-to-air missile from the 48NS series (referred to as GARGOYLE by NATO) on 17 July 2014.
These locations are in the immediate vicinity of large population centres and the launch of a missile would most likely have led to messages on social media or other public media. MIVD is not aware of such publications.

By order of the


The Director of the Military Intelligence and Security Service

O. Eichelsheim

Major general

End of Official Notice.

Plotting the given coordinates of eleven locations on a map gives this result:
Green pin : crash site Grabovo
Yellow pins: Ukrainian Buk M1 locations according to MIVD.
Blue pins : Russian Buk M1 locations according to MIVD.
Yellow line : Border Ukraine Russia

One of the conclusions that can be drawn from this Official Notice by the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service is that on the basis of sources it considers reliable it becomes apparent that flight MH17 was flying beyond the range of all identified and operational Ukrainian and Russian locations where 9K37M1 Buk M1 systems were deployed.
The main conclusion: the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service on 21 September 2016 (ONE WEEK before the JIT press-conference on 28th September 2016!) had no information from any reliable source that any Russian Buk-M1 had crossed the border with Ukraine during any time during the conflict.

How is that possible?

When we zoom in on the map and look at the three locations (blue pins) of Russian Buk-M1 we notice these three locations are not only too far from the crash site, but even on the Russian side of the border.
Now lets have a closer look at Location (10) 483854.00″N 395018.00″E where according to MIVD a Buk-M1 was stationed 18 July 2014 and onwards is only 6,8km from the border with Ukraine.

Google Earth has limited options to chose satellite images by date. We checked this location and four different dates showed:

28 June 2014 no vehicles
2 July 2014 8 vehicles visible
17 July 2014 no vehicles
25 July 2014 no vehicles
No Google Earth data for 18 July 2014 is available for this location.

Striking is the fact that the Dutch military has detailed information about positions of mobile Russian Buk system positions thus not stationed on their regular bases, while most Ukrainian Buks are only mentioned at stationary positions at their military bases.

Is it credible Ukraine kept almost all its Buk systems at their bases and did not at any moment during the Anti Terrorist Operation'(ATO) move its air defense assets to mobile locations outside their bases? How likely is that, knowing 12 July 2014 Ukrainian air defense forces have been put on full combat alert?

Coming back to the question raised at the beginning of this article: was MH17 properly investigated?

From the analyses I conducted over the years I have substantiated doubts and the content of the freshly leaked information from these four documents only makes my doubts stronger.

Stay tuned and subscribe to the Bonanza Media newsletters for more to come.


]Newsletter 3

Monday, 24 February 2020

Bonanza Media published a new video with more explanations on the leaked documents from our previous newsletter. You can check it out here:

Complete documents of all 4 leaks plus a new one can be downloaded as one folder with separate PDF-files by clicking this link. [Total file size 3 Mb - link expires February 29]
Regarding the authenticity of the leaked document Operation Avanella, conducted by the AFP, the Australian police issued a following statement:

Some of the documents recently distributed without permission are documents of the Australian Federal Police, prepared as part of the investigation being carried out by the Joint Investigation Group (JIT).
Regarding the authenticity of a leaked letter report about BUK positions in Russia and Ukraine made by Dutch Intelligence.
Last time we published an incomplete document in English that is based on a Dutch original. Now you can also see what the original looks like.
The Dutch MIVD sent Bonanza Media a following statement on the authenticity of this leaked document:

We do not comment on the request below. For further questions, we refer you to the OM, which you have already included in this question.
The Dutch Prosecution Service response to Bonanza Media was:

In the run-up to the MH17 court case, various documents appear in the media that refer to the JIT investigation. Although we understand that there are questions, the Dutch OM does not make statements about these documents. Questions about evidence will be answered in court because that is the only place where we want to speak freely about this.


On the same day the document from MIVD was written (21 September 2016) a supplementary letter was made about another Buk Telar that was not mentioned in the main letter.
The Buk Telar mentioned in this document was closest to the point where the Malaysian Boeing was shot down, but MIVD explains this Telar could not have been the murder weapon, because it was heavily damaged.
More images on social media of this Telar's location:
485'58.00"N 3745'13.00"E
As you can see the Dutch military did a thorough job locating relevant Buk Telar positions in the conflict area in which MH17 was shot down. Lets not forget that MIVD is a professional organization with contacts at highest NATO levels and with access to satellite images of ESA and many other sources.

Based on the information presented, the main conclusion we make is this: The Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service on 21 September 2016 (ONE WEEK before the JIT press-conference on 28th September 2016!) had no information from any reliable source that any Russian Buk-M1 had crossed the border with Ukraine during any time during the conflict.

It will be interesting to follow the court proceedings and study the evidence presented from other sources such as social media, and sources that base their conclusions on social media. Could it be that they are better informed than the military professionals who are trained and specialized to know these kind of things?

Regarding a Record of Interview with a witness refuting the claim Ukrainian Air Force did not fly.
We also published a Dutch version.

A quick reminder of what the witness saw and heard himself:

- 2 fighter jets in the sky, which circled over the town a few minutes before the Boeing went down.
- a loud bang over his head
- a HORIZONTAL white trail
- The Boeing coming down
Heres the witness. His name is Boris. We were able to trace him during our first trip to Donbass this year. Thank you all who supported us financially to make it happen!

Boris agreed to an interview and his new testimony complies with what he said to the JIT. We are in the process of making a report about Boris MH17 story.


20160212. JIT , 2016 .

7. Radar and satellite images update

NET: There is a lot about this subject in Dutch media and Parliament. It appears people are justreceive primary data from the Russian Federation or Ukraine. This question has been answered by both nations but it is being questioned by media. Media is also suggesting the U.S has more, information that could be contributed. We havent  received anything from them. People are getting confused because they dont know the difference between primary and secondary data and radar and satellite imagery. Parliament held round table discussions with experts to provide information on this subject. The media misinterpreted a comment made by Minister for Justice and Security regarding no further information is required by the Dutch Prosecutors in relation to radar and satellite data, which is where some of the questions are coming from.


Minutes 20160212.pdf
20160212 Minutes JIT Leader Meeting

JIT 12.02.16.

Action Points
A. Belgium To continue to liaise and report progress Belgian calculations of the three
alternative launch sites and the missile debris field. Check if the different wind speeds on
higher altitudes are included.
B. Australia Once completed share Objective 3 & 4 report on Fragmentation pattern,
comparisons of apparent damage and best fit weapons investigations in the JIT.
C. Netherlands Update the JIT on the requested OVV information and share the requested
OVV information with the JIT partners.
D. Netherlands - Obtain all information known in regards to the chain of custody of 20cm
piece of wreckage found in personal belongings of victim. Once in a report format it will be
forward to all JIT partners so as enquires can be conducted.
Minutes JIT Leader meeting February 12 2016 (0900 hours)
Driebergen (NET), (BEL) and (AUS): Mrs Maartje Nieuwenhuis (Chair, Dutch Prosecutor), Mr Gerrit
Thiry (SIO, NPN), Mr Andrew Smith (SIO, AFP), Dennis Spies (Project Leader, Forensics), Willem
Marissen (Forensics, Co-ordinator), Mr Wouter Waumans (BFP) & Christian Van Der Aa (BFP), &
Miss Kim Giles (Minutes, AFP)
Ukraine (UKR): Oleg Ukraine Prosecutor (Via video conference from Dutch Embassy)
[Meeting commenced 0920 hours after unsuccessful attempts to connect both with Royal Malaysia
Police and Malaysia Attorney-Generals Office (MAL)]
1. Minutes meeting December 4 2015
AUS: on page 1 Objective 3 of DTSG should read not yet completed as of December 4 meeting
Nil further amendments requested
Action points from meeting December 4 2015
A, B and C are yet to be completed.
D K are completed and can be removed from the Action points.

K. Netherlands the Dutch Police officer selling MH17 memorabilia has confessed after being
arrested and has been disciplined via Dutch internal policing processes.
2. Forensics update
Presentation on the preliminary results from the expert meeting & forensic comparisons from
November 23 to December 4 2015, concluding slides attached.
NET Question for MAL and AUS: Request for the LTFO to write a report which describes as best as
possible the chain of custody for the 20cm piece of wreckage (W) found in between personal
belongings. Request Australia and Malaysia attempt to establish the identity of the person who
found W and see if they remember locating it and why it was placed in Box 2 with personal
belongings (the piece wasnt embedded in anything). W arrived by truck in Box 2 from Kharkiv. No
Netherlands staff can recall locating W or placing it in Box 2.
AUS request photographs, dates of relevance and reference numbers are sent through so they can
attempt to identify which staff to ask.
New Action: Netherlands to obtain all information known in a report and forward to all JIT
partners so as enquires can be conducted.
BEL Question: Was the 9M38M1 produced before 1991? The former Soviet Union all used the same
3. Prolongation of JIT agreement
The JIT Agreement was prolonged, signed and shared. This item is ongoing as when staff changes
occur the JIT agreement requires updating with the new staff names. Please let Maartje know the
details of new staff.
4. Letter to the Next of Kin (NoK)
A draft letter was sent to everyone for comment.
UKR & MAL: No amendments requested
BEL: Lieve has suggested some changes re limiting the information on U.S contributions, depending
on what is already in the media
AUS: Suggestions have been made for potential amendments

NET: The letter is aiming to be sent out early next week, and will be sent to NoK in other countries
via established protocol for NoK Liaison Officers. It will include an invitation to attend the NoK
meeting scheduled for March 7. The final version will be sent to all JIT leaders, and the current
version will be sent out for information. Note for everyone to understand there will be slight
variations between the Dutch and English versions due to the translation process.
AUS: Australia has scheduled for a NoK update around the end of February, beginning of March.
5. Next of Kin meeting March 7 2016
NET: The Dutch Prime Minister has promised a NoK meeting soon and international NoK will be
invited. The meetings content will be shared with the JIT to give an idea of what will be provided at
the meeting. The meeting is planned to give the NoK an update in regards to the investigation, and
they are currently looking at what information can be shared. There is the possibility of setting up
three separate workshops, which wont go into specifics of the investigation, but which will cover off
on questions they are getting the most from NoK, including questions about the radar and satellite
imagery and prosecution.
The idea is for experts not connected to the investigation to hold workshops to give general
explanations to questions NoK have; like explaining the difference between radar and satellite
imagery and what information can be obtained from each. The NoK will be required to register
before the workshops and could possibly attend two of the three. JIT leaders will be updated on the
progress of this so they are informed on what information is planned on being shared.
6. Communication plan after the next of kin meeting:
NET: We are commencing planning in regards to what information will be shared after March 7.
There have been 10 subjects identified which could be shared on the NoK website to explain
different parts of the investigation. Some of the subjects will be discussed in the NoK letter and on
March 7. That is why the decision has been made to work on tow long reads. We are looking at
possibly doing this in May/June and at the end of summer, although no dates are set. If this
progresses, JIT Leaders will have to look at it and determine if its what they want to share regarding
the investigation.
AUS: Supportive of the idea.
AUS Question: If we provide an update now, is there a requirement to continue to do this?

NET: There isnt a legal requirement but the aim is to be pro-active about the information being
shared with NoK.
BEL Question: What information would be shared at the end of summer after the results are due to
be submitted?
NET: We will have to consider what the content would be of any updates but NoK dealings wont
finish with the July 1 deadline. We want to plan for questions NoK will have after the deadline, re
forensics results and potential arrests etc.
BEL: Maybe we should re-evaluate after the March 7 meetings?
NET: Dutch NoK are in contact with a number of Dutch politicians. We expect pressure on providing
new information.
AUS: Australian NoK are in contact with some of the Dutch NoK regarding the above. Its a good idea
to be pro-active in planning but the dates of releasing results need to be very flexible, as the results
are contingent on us meeting required deadlines. Some results should be kept aside for further
updates in case a deadline is missed.
NET: We may need to look at addressing a Special Committee of Parliament again. We will keep JIT
updated on NoK progress.
BEL: Keep in mind Belgium Parliament is in recess from July to the middle of September.
UKR: Attention to this case fluctuates with media attention so we should provide some information
to keep people thinking about the investigation.
7. Radar and satellite images update
NET: There is a lot about this subject in Dutch media and Parliament. It appears people are just
beginning to read the OVV report in detail and questions are arising regarding why the OVV did not
receive primary data from the Russian Federation or Ukraine. This question has been answered by
both nations but it is being questioned by media. Media is also suggesting the U.S has more
information that could be contributed. We havent received anything from them. People are getting
confused because they dont know the difference between primary and secondary data and radar
and satellite imagery. Parliament held round table discussions with experts to provide information
on this subject. The media misinterpreted a comment made by Minister for Justice and Security
regarding no further information is required by the Dutch Prosecutors in relation to radar and
satellite data, which is where some of the questions are coming from.

We should receive the official report from Dutch Military on U.S data by mid-March, and then we
can determine future actions. There are still outstanding legal requests regarding radar and satellite
data to other countries and PRIMO are still working on it. There has been contact with European
agencies regarding satellite imagery, with an appointment scheduled for February to see how much
more information we can obtain and share with the JIT. This is to show the efforts we went to collect
data in court.
Aviation experts have completed their report and will be sharing it next week after it is vetted, it
should assist in court and provide a specialist look.
AUS Question for JIT: Will the Dutch Military Intelligence report be shared with JIT?
NET: That is the intention of the Dutch Prosecution. They are willing to testify regarding the report if
8. Around the Table
AUS: Our Forensics officer arrives on Monday 15th and will start working towards the outstanding
Objectives. SIO has been busy with the LTFO regarding the additional remains of Australian nationals
identified. As a result of the misunderstanding in Parliament by media, journalists have been
approaching the Australian Embassy directly asking about radar data issues. Embassy staff have been
provided a standard response regarding AFPs active participation in the JIT and subsequent
inappropriateness to comment further. Media are then directed to speak with the Dutch Prosecutor.
BEL: Belgium isnt experiencing issues with media attention and will have the update on the expert
debris calculations as soon as possible. BEL may have to ask an investigation judge for permission for
the house search; however Lieve will have no more authority if this happens. A second discussion
will be required before further action is taken.
UKR: They are not experiencing any media issues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the
situation and there are no issues anymore.


Translator :T
Aleksander :A
Investigator :I
A: I cant hear you.
T: Aleksander , you can hear me , right?
A: Yes, yes.
T: Good evening, at last we have a connection with you via Skype.
A: I should have done it the same way yesterday.
T: You probably did not manage to do it. Luckily we managed to do it today.
T: I had to do it this way yesterday but.
A: But I cant see you.
T: But I cant see you.
I: We deliberately put tape on it.
T: We intentionally covered the camera.
A: Okay, it sometimes happens that when the camera is on the connection deteriorates.
That is what worries me.
T: But you can hear me properly?
A: Yes.
T: I can hear you very well to that is why I hope that we will be able to hear and
understand one another well during the conversation.
A: I also wanted to show you a drawing that I made . But this way is okay as well. You
can see me though, cant you?
T: I cannot see you either because the camera is covered with tape.
T: I cant see him either?
I: No, we cant see him either.
T: He has put something on paper made a drawing.
A: You can cover your camera with tape but you should be able to see me.
T: You can cover your own camera with tape but you can see me if you want.
I: Tell him that I have no objection . It is okay but I reckon we have skype without
camera here.
T: Shall I try? It is here, right?
I: Go ahead.
T: One moment pleaseI cant see you yet . Turn on your camera. I will be able to see
you but you cannot see me.
A: It is set to yellow over here. The camera is on.
T: I can only see the yellow colour, that is all. That is here? But I cant see him.
I: You dont see him
A: My camera is on. I pressed this crossed out in the yellow disappeared
T: But if you remove the crossed out one I will be able to see you.
T: He just wants to try.
A: I should not remove the crossed out one I was beginning to understand more
about it.
T: But if you remove the crossed out one then.
A: Still a yellow colour .. now it has disappeared altogether.. now I see the yellow
colour go round and round again.
T: But I should be able to see you, but you dont see me.
A: The most important thing is that you can see meI will show you.

T: But I cant see you maybe your camera does not work
A: The camera does work, I just talked to my brother.
T: In that case I dont know why I cant see you.
A: I just talked to my brother near here in Lugansk province.
T: I just talked to my brother and he was able to see me wellshall we continue our
conversation anyway.. one moment please.. I am going to ask these questions at the
I: His name first, tell him that I am a Dutch police officer
T: Can you please say your full name
A: Bozenko Aleksander Albertovic,, Al.bertovich, you write it with the softening accent.
T: I understand
I: What is his address?
T: What is your address?
A: Enakievo, ulitsa (translator: street) Chernomorskaya 58a.
T: Ulitsa Chernomorskaya 58a, Enakievo. I have made a note of it.
Sitting next to me here is someone from the police, he is going to ask you questions.
A: Please do so.
T: Your questions please.
I: . Why did you contact us?
T: You contacted us , you reacted to our message . What do you want to tell us? Why did
you contact us?
A: I contacted you I told you before that I did my military service with the PVO(antiaircraft defence T240) in the Moscow area. Airliners an airliner was flying low the
cloud cover was 50% a little lower than the lower layer of clouds higher flew an
airliner.. the airplane was clearly visible. Behind at a short distance on either side there
were two fighter jets, it was like an elongated triangle. Do you understand what I mean?
T: Yes, I understand.. one moment , I will translate it.
A: Yes, go ahead, I have to go for a minute as well.
T: I think he is going to the toilet.. in the mean time I am going to translate. Let me see, It
was cloudy that day for 50%.. Under the clouds I saw an airliner flying.. . I was well able to
see it. .. what I also saw at not too great a distance from the airliner were two fighter jets on
either side and together they formed a kind of triangle.
I: Where was he at that moment that he saw that?
T: Are you sitting in front of the camera again?
A: Yes, yes.
T: You told me what you saw. Where were you yourself at that moment.
A: I slept during the day and in the evening I went to the vegetable plot.. for the
evening the siren had just gone off .. here near us at the factory when the shifts change
the siren sounds I was working in the vegetable plot at that moment, I did not look at the
telephone .. put the telephone next to me, I was picking tomatoes because we were not
receiving any pension money, so I was picking tomatoes and binding them up. I see
airplanes fly. The first one was an airliner by the size of it and behind it at some distance
no more than 20, 25 maybe even 30 kilometres seemingly on either side two fighter jets in
the shape of an elongated triangle.
T: One moment you said before the evening... but at what time was this roughly?
A: The siren sounds at 3 oclock in the afternoon.
T: That means that you went to the vegetable plot at 3 oclock.
A: The siren sounds at 3 oclock .. the shifts are from 07:00 hours until 15:00 hours,
from 15:00 hours to 23:00 hours and from 23:00 hours until 07:00 hours. The siren of the
factory near us sounds.

T: So, on that day I was at home at first, I slept in the afternoon, and later I went to my
vegetable plot , I did hear the signal from the factory, it goes off at regular times at 15:00 ,
23:00 and at 07:00 in the morning. At 15:00 I heard the factory signal and at that moment I
was in the vegetable plot, I went to pick tomatoes , I dont get a pension so I have to provide
for myself.
I: Where is his vegetable plot?
T: Can you tell me where your vegetable plot is?
A: You can look at a map of Enakievo a village [translator : inaudible] ulitsa
Chernomorskaja [translator: street name].. the street runs there from North to East, my
house is aligned from North to East. Look on the map of Enakievo at the ulitsa
T: You said that your house is on Chernomorskaja (street) from North to East and that
you have a garden and a house.
A: Yes, a garden to the side of and behind the house. The plot of land is 12 x 100, the
house with the garden 5x 100 and the rest if it is the vegetable plot.
T: If you take my street. I live from north to west along this street. There I have my house
and my vegetable plot. If you look it up on the map you will see that my house is there, it is
house number 58a. That is where my house and vegetable plot are.
I: When he was in his vegetable plot, he says that he saw an airliner fly with two fighter
jets on either side of it. From his vegetable garden, in what direction did he have to look in
order to be able to see that?
T: You told me that you were in the vegetable plot at the moment that you saw an
airplane fly and behind this airplane you saw two fighter jets fly. In what direction did they
A: They flew from west to east.
T: From west to east. Again, he stated earlier. The airliner was. elongated and he could
see two fighter jets at a distance of about 20, 25, 30 km from it. From west to east.
I: It flew from west to east.
T: So you said that it flew from west to east?
A: Yes, from west to east.
I: Could he indicate from his vegetable plot that he had to look in the direction of for
instance town A or town B or town C?
T: When you saw the aircraft fly, in what direction were they flying for instance in the
direction of this town or that town. In the direction of what town did this airplane fly?
A: If you look at the map (I did that region on foot and for about 15 years by
motorcycle) , you will see Enakievo and after that the direction of Kirov, Kirovskoje.
T: Kirovskoje? Do you mean to say that you saw that it flew from Enakievo in the
direction of Kirovskoje?
A: Yes, from Enakievo towards Kirovskoje, further on there is Shakhtjorsk and Torez.
I know Torez well, I grew up there, my family lives there, I have lived here continuously for
60 years.
T: So you saw the airplane fly in the direction of Kirovskoje, Shaktjorsk and Torez?
A: Yes, in that direction.
T: One moment please, in the direction of Kirovskoje those are places Shakhtjorsk,
should I spell it? And Torez. I know these places like the back of my hand. That is where I
come from, that area.
I: He sees an airplane with two fighter jets on either side. What did he see after that?
T: So you are standing there, you see an airliner and two fighter jets. What happened next?
A: I stood and looked until they disappeared behind the clouds. The sky was clouded
over for 50%. The important point was that the airliner was flying rather low. I told you

before that I served with the PVO (anti-aircraft defence T240)in Moscow, I looked because
I was interested, an old habit I have.
T: You saw it fly and?
A: And behind at a certain distance in the form of an elongated triangle , so not with
equal sides, fighter jets were flying in the same direction, the same way and as they say at
the same ceiling
T: What do you mean ceiling?
A: That is the altitude from the ground.
T: I stood looking at the airplanes, that is a habit of mine because I did military service
during the Soviet era, I was always interested in looking at the aircraft in the sky every time.
I: What did he see?
T: So I saw the aircraft, three aircraft , first an airliner and two fighter jets one behind the
other, next to each other or in any event in the form of an elongated triangle . I stood and
watched how they flew into the clouds.
I: And then?
T: You stood and you watched as they flew into the clouds. Three aircraft. Correct?
A: It was light cloud with about 50% cloud cover, an airliner, it was of larger
proportions, and two fighter jets behind it were flying in the same direction. It looked as
thought they were following its [interpreter: the airliners]wings. It [interpreter: the
airliner] had large wings and one on one side and one on the other side, their upper wings
side by side, they flew behind as if they were their escorts. Imagine a squadron: at the front
the conducting one [interpreter: the airliner]and behind it two escorting ones. That is the
way they were flying only at a rather longer distance. The conducting one and the escorts
are flying side by side but at a distance of about 20,25 kilometres
T: Do you mean these fighter jets were the conducting one and the escort?
A: No, take a squadron as an example, the aircraft fly in the formation of a triangle: At
the front the principal aircraft and behind it two escorts do you understand what I
mean? They[interpreter: aircraft] flew like a squadron only the airliner flew at the front
and the two fighter jets behind it at a certain distance, wing to wing at the same surface
[English translator:altitude]
T: I do understand only it is not clear to me about the airliner, was this the conducting
A: I mean as if it were the leading one. In the same way that a squadron flies.
T: Yes, I understandone moment.You should see it as.. what do you call it. The
fighter jets that are flying at the same altitude, they belong together that is how you should see
it. .. all three of those aircraft flew at the same altitude. You can compare it with for instance,
just like military terms: this one is the leader and the others the following aircraft the cloud
cover was about 50%.
I: And then?
T: And what happened next?
A: It surprised me as long as I live I have never seen aircraft flying in that way as if
they were on parade, and in this case two beside it at a certain distance I stood observing
them for as long as I was able to see them. When they had disappeared into the mist I
stopped looking I was observing them for a long time.
T: It surprised me I saw a kind of aircraft fly over three aircraft at the same altitude
at such a short distance from each other and they flew into the clouds and I still stood
looking that way and then they disappeared from the sky.
I: On what day was this?
T: When you were standing in the vegetable plot on what day was this?

A: Sorry I cant remember. What I do know is that wait a minute I came back
from the market . No I cant remember. What I do remember. before that timethere
is a coal mining company in Torez and there is an old mine tower, and on that old mine
tower a fighter jet came down the 16th .. June .. no July.. because a relative of mine had
called me and told me that they were without power I asked what was going on he told
me that an aircraft had come down on the old mine tower, that is why they were without
power the power station had failed my family lives over thereit is the Progres coal
mining company.
T: Did I understand you correctly 16 July , on the old mine tower of the Progres coal
mining company?
A: Yes, yes
T: On 16 th of July an aircraft came down on the old tower of the Progres mining
company and then the lights went out.
I: On the old tower
T: That is a kind of mine tower of the Progres mining company then the lights went
I: When did he see an airliner with those two fighter jets?
T: When did you see the airliner with the two fighter jets? On what day? What date was
A: The 17th I was standing observing the relative had told me that they were
without power .. a plane has come down on the old mine tower of the Progres mining
company..the cables of the power company are burnt they will repair them soon. That is
why I was able to remember it. The aircraft fly over the Saur-Mogila..Saur-Mogila is a
high point in Donetsk province that is where the rebels had their camp, and the planes
often came to attack them. An aircraft was gliding in the sky that day and was brought
down and fell on to the premises of the of the Progres mining company on the 16th
that is why I reme[translator: mber]. And the 17th two planes were flying and an airliner in
front . I stood observing them.
T: One moment you are telling so much.
T: He is telling me so much all at once, I have to know very clearly how and what..
T: Did I understand correctly? The 16th you had the power station failed.
A: No, not where I am , in the town Torez the Progres mine company have a
look on the map a plane came flying from Saur-Mogila..
T: One moment On the 16th there was a power cut because a plane had come down on
the mine tower of the Progres mining company.. that was in Torez , that is where
there was a power failure. Right?
A: Yes, that was in Torez.
T: On the 16th of July (really the same story) .. a plane fell on to the mine tower a
power station, there was a power station there, the lights went out and the mining
company is called Progres and that is in Torez that was on the 16th of July. He is
telling too much, I really cant. anymore
I: Can you summarise it?
T: Yes.
I: You have to translate every part.
T: On 16 July a plane was brought down and it fell on to the mine tower on the old
mine tower of the Progres in Torez.
A: Yes in Torez.
T: There at the power station there was a power failure. That is correct, right?
A: Yes
T: About the 16th it is correct anyway

I: I will [say] what I have so far you are going to tell him.
T: The investigator is going to say something to you now. Please listen.
I: On the 16th of July an airplane crashed on to the old mine tower of the Progres
mining company in Torez.
T: On the 16th of July an airplane crashed on to the old mine tower of the Progres
mining company in Torez.
I: On the 17th of July at three oclock, this gentleman was in the garden of his house, the
vegetable plot.
T: On the 17th of July you were standing in the vegetable plot at three oclock in the
afternoon. It was on 17 July.
A: Yes. After three oclock.
I: At that moment the siren sounded
T: At that moment you heard the siren, yes?
A: I heard the siren, I was in the vegetable plot at that time. I saw an airliner in the sky
and fighter jets., I heard the roaring.
T: One moment please. Yes, correct, so at 3 oclock I was in the vegetable plot.
I: At that moment he sees. because he used to be a soldier, he is interested in aircraft,
he sees at that moment an airliner with to the left and to the right a fighter jet.
T: Because you are always interested in aircraft because you served in the army , you
saw on the day that you were in the vegetable plot, an airliner fly and two fighter jets.
A: Yes, at a certain distance
T: Left and right.
A: Yes, to the left and the right.
T: Left and right.
A: Keeping to the same course.
T: Keeping to the same course.
I: From west to east
T: That is from west to east, right?
A: Yes, yes.
I: From his vegetable plot he had to look in the direction of these three towns.
T: When you were standing in the vegetable plot you were looking in the same direction
as where the aircraft were flying to, namely the direction of Kirovskoje, Skakhtjorsk
and Torez. Right?
A: Yes.
I: The cloud cover was 50% that day.
T: The cloud cover was 50%
A: Approximately 50%
T: Approximately
I: He sees that this airliner with on both sides fighter jets, one on each side, fly into the
T: You see the airliner and two fighter jets, one the left and the right, fly into the cloud.
A: Yes within the sight of a human being my power of vision is good.
T: I have good eyes, so I was able to see that they into the clouds.
I: What happened after that? What did he see and hear after that.
T: So they flew into the clouds. What else did you see and hear.
A: Did not see or hear anything else. The airliner went first and the fighter jest after it.
They disappeared into the clouds and I continued working in the vegetable plot.
T: So you saw them fly into the clouds. Other than that you did not see or hear anything.
A: How far I was able to see that so to speak, maybe some 30 kilometres.
T: So as far as I was able to see the planes.

A: One moment, one momentmaybe 30 or I would even be able to see 40 kilometres.
Saur-Mogila is high up and when the weather is good you can even see the Azov
sea, that is more than 100 kilometres.
T: 107 km to the Azov sea.
A: Yes, from that I mean to say, how far I can see with my eyes, I
have good eyesight.
T: I have very good eyes. I was able to see it from very far off. If I were standing in this
place for instance, Saur-Mogila that is , it is really a high place in our region, from up
here I could even see the Azov sea that is approximately 105 km. I mean to say that I
have great eyes. And I stood looking , the aircraft just went in, the clouds that is, and
from that moment, so when I could not see them anymore, I did not see anything
neither did I hear anything.
I: And after that heard or seen anything?
T: The aircraft went into the clouds.
A: Yes, flew into the clouds.
T: Can you tell me if you heard or saw anything after they had flown into the clouds?
A: When they had gone into the clouds , I did not hear anything else. From my house,
the distance to Torez is 50 kilometres if you follow the road. I have gone there
several times on the motorcycle, my family lives there and in a straight line it is 35,
37, 38 km no more.
T: Where I live from Enakievo to Torezand the distance is 50 km, if you go by
motorcycle for instance , and if you take from Enakievo to Torez in a straight line 35-
38 km.
I: What does he see after that. What does he see from his garden.
T: And after that when continued with your work in the vegetable garden, you did not
see or hear anything anymore, or did you?
A: I did not see anything else. I saw the last two, fighter jets, fly into the clouds and I
could not see anything else.
T: I saw that two fighter jets also flew into the clouds and from that moment I could not
see anything else.
I: Does he want this statement in his own name or does he wish to stay anonymous?
T: Can you tell me if you want to sign the statement you just made, or do you wish to
remain anonymous?
A: No, no if I was able to send it but I dont have e-mail here. At my age I decided to
explore the computer now. Before that time this was unknown territory to me.
T: One moment if you had the possibility to sign, would you be willing to sign?
A: Yes, for 100%.
T: I would like to sign it for 100% of course I cannot do it via the computer because I
have only just learnt the computer.
I: The area where he lives now , is it who is in control there now?
T: The region where you live now who is the boss there now, under who is it now?
A: I understand you. The Peoples Republic of Donetsk (DNR). The whole region
comes under DNR. Take Debaltsevo, Uglegorsk, from here to Lugansk province,
you have Kamenka there all of it comes under the DNR.
T: He mentions different places and that is the DNR at this moment, under the DNR.
I: Is he prepared at a later stage because we are going take his statement to the
investigation team. Is he prepared to make an additional statement at a later stage if
necessary, also by means of skype.
T: Your statement will be sent to the investigation team and afterwards they may have
some questions. Are you prepared to answer additional questions if need be?

A: Yes, certainly.
T: Also via skype. Via Skype of course.
A: You have my name now. And another thing young lady. Take a map of Donetsk
T: He has a question.
A: Look at the road from Debaltsevo-Rostov
T: Debaltsevo
A: From Debaltsevo to Rostov, Kharkov-Debaltsevo-Krasny luch-Rostov.
Stop at Krasny luch .. Have you found it?
T: No I do not have a map but I am writing it down.
A: Almost up to Krasny luch there were Ukrainian checkpoints 20 were the
Ukrainian checkpoints.
T: In Debaltsevo, Kharkov and Krasny luch there were Ukrainian checkpoints?
A: Before Krasny luch were the Ukrainian checkpoints.
T: If you take the route Debaltsevo, Kharkov and Rostov from Kharkov you look for
Krasny luch, that is a different place, near this place was a checkpoint of the Ukrainian
I: Yes
T: Yes and what else?
A: The point is The Ukrainians might have brought it down in order to put the
blame on the DNR. That is my supposition because if you look on the map , you see
the road from Gravobo that goes to the motorway, from Gravobo to the motorway is
about 25-30 km.
T: One moment. He is giving some details. He says, that is my opinion, I do not think
that the rebels have brought down the plane because he gives details about distances.
I: I think that we are going to continue some other time with a detailed interview
T: I think that we are going to continue our conversation not today but at a later date.
A: Fine, but when exactly? I am not always behind the laptop, if you call me on the
phone , I will switch the laptop on.
T: Will you call me on the phone? Because I am not going to be on skype all day.
I: I understand. I will text him to make an appointment.
T: I will send you a text message in which I will say when you should be on skype.
A: What I also wanted to say. When the people had not been recovered for a long time,
people from the Progres coal mining company were sent there in order to recover
T: Do you mean the mortal remains?
A: Yes, yes I know this for sure. I have relatives who work there. One works for this
company, the other is retired, he is 15 years older than me. He worked there as a
mechanic, he knows everything
T: You mean that he helped clear the human remains.
A: Not he himself people from every department from the coalmine were sent.
T: Human remains were lying there for a long time in this area and I know via my
relative that people were sent there from different places to pick up and store away
human remains.
I: We would like the date of birth of this gentleman.
T: Can you give your date of birth please?
A: 18 August 1955.
T: Understood 1955?

A: Yes
I: Where were you born?
T: Where were you born?
A: Here.
T: What do you mean by here?
A: In the town Enakievo.
I: We have all his details
A: I have been living in the same house for 60 years.
T: I have been living in the same house for 60 years. I was born and raised here, born in
I: We can tell him what he has stated now. I am going to submit it to the leader of the
investigation team. If it has to be more detailed the interview we will text him or
telephone him in order to make contact via skype one day at a certain time to extend
the skype statement.
T: Let us agree the following. I have to pass on your statement to my superior, to
someone who is the leader of our investigation team, he is going to go through the
statement. If contact with you is necessary, we will send you a text message with a
date and time so that you will be on skype again on that day and at that time in order to
talk to us.
A: Yes, fine and another thing. . I was watching the programme RTR Planeta on
Russian TV and a man from Gravobo said that a fighter jet flew away .. that is the
problemI cant remember when the programme of that channel is on [note
English translator: Dutch not clear] what that man said, he said that a fighter jet
was flying close by at a certain altitude and flew away.
T: What was the name of the TV channel ?
A: RTL Planeta
T: On what day was this, do you remember?
A: I dont know you can fill in Boeing in the search engine. That is where you can
find it.
T: There was also a male eyewitness from Gravobo, he also told his story about a fighter
jet that flew away that is from RTL Planeta but I cannot tell on what date but if
you just key it in you can see it that is his story that mans.
I: Okay, we will do that as well our appointment if we want to examine him again
we will contact him. You can thank him for continuing to try to have this conversation
I would like to thank him for that.
T: So we have agreed, we will send an sms and we will say when we will make an
appointment with you for you to be on skype again. We thank you very much that you
were determined enough to try and phone us for a third day to get contact..
A: I am in favour of justice prevailing.
T: I am in favour of justice.
A: ..In Ukraine it is all chaos now. They did the change of power since then
everything has been going wrong people died in the accident for nothing
T: One man has overturned everything that why this situation came about. I just think
they are innocent victims.
I: We want to thank him if it is necessary we will contact him.
T: Thank you very much for calling , thank you for your information. If it is necessary
we will contact you. We have already told you how we are going to contact you.
Thank you very much.
A: I heard something on the TV and from my family in Torez what happened there.

T: I have relatives in Torez as well. I heard from them as well what they told me and
what it was like overthere.
I: That .next time.
T: And bring the relatives as well?
I: If it is necessary we will do that as well.
T: If it is necessary that your relatives have a conversation with us we will let you know
as well.
A: How are they going to talk? They dont have skype.
T: We[sic] live in Torez en
A: They dont have skype he is 78.
T: He is 78 years old.
I: We now know what this gentleman saw. We are going to analyse that for a more
detailed statement we will come back to him.
T: Thank you for the information you have given us, this is sufficient for the time being
to do a first analysis and afterwards, when this has been analysed we will contact you
again. Thank you very much.
A: I plead for justice.
T: Thanks again. .
A: Another thing before that [translator: event] I looked at aircraft , they roared, and
before that [translator: event] aircraft , fighter jets flew very frequently. The glass in
the windows of the houses shook that is why I paid attention to the aircraft every
time after their flying day [sic]in June. They flew over Enakievo , you can ask
anyone about that , they flew at a low altitude so that the glass shook. At the
beginning of Ju.. [translator: inaudible] that is why I pay attention to aircraft.
T: Did you say June?
A: They flew in June and July. They were doing reconnaissance here in June and
T: In June and July 2014 many fighter jets were flying very low. At some point you start
to notice of course . I watched the aircraft. What struck me as well is that they roared,
but what he meant?.... on what day that I dont know, shall I enquire?
I: You can but we will come back to that anyway, or in his statement we read many
points that are being asked. We are going to put it on paper and we will pass it on and
then he will be questioned further via Skype. We will contact him.
T: Please hold on to that information, first we are going to analyse what you have told
A: One more minutewhen I nearly found myself under the airplanes[translator:
probably the bombardments]2 June I travelled from my brothers in Antrasit, my
brother lives outside Antrasit in the town Seludikovo [translator: phonetically], I
was sitting on a bus, at the bend near.[translator: place name inaudible] the bus
took the bend and at that moment bombardments of the motorway were carried out
by a fighter jet. There were civilian cars and busses at the checkpoint and at that
checkpoint they were being fired at. This was on 2 June at 14:30.
T: Did you understand that we will contact you at a later date?
A: Yes, yes.. that is what I mean, why I paid attention to airplanes.
T: So 2 June .. a relative was on a bus on the way to somewhere. On that day civilian
cars and busses were fired at from the air. .. by fighter jets .. so the checkpoints to
get anywhere you have to go via the checkpoints, and they happened to fly along the
road, the road with civilian cars, they started firing at them, just to give an indication
as to why I keep an eye on aircraft.

I: He knows what is going to happen next. Again thank him for all the trouble he has
taken to make this interview possible. If necessary we will contact him at a later date
via sms or telephone for a skype interview.
T: I would like to thank you once again for what you have told us. I would like to tell
you once again, we have agreed with you that if necessary we will contact you. Via an
sms, you come on skype again and we will discuss this subject further with you.
A: I would prefer it if you telephone, I dont always look at incoming text messages
because of the advertisements, that is why I dont pay attention to them.
T: I understand you. We are going to end the conversation. I will pass on what you have
just told me. We understand that you would rather be called on the telephone for a
skype interview.
A: We cannot see each other but we can hear each other.
T: Very good. We thank you. Have a good evening. Good health and good bye.
R: Good bye.

, JIT MH17.
. .

( )

Field Office meeting (Day 1)
Driebergen, 25 January 2018


Dutch prosecutor's service: Maartje Nieuwenhuis (chair), Manon Ridderbeks, Anne van
Dooren, Elfred Warner (minutes)

Belgian Prosecutor's service: Lieve Pellens

Belgian Police: Wouter Waumans

Dutch Police: Gerrit Thiry

Australian Federal Police: David Nelson, Alex Kazagrandi (interpreter)

Ukrainian Prosecutor's service: Oleg Peresada

Morning session


Maartje opens the meeting and welcomes the participants. This meeting's goal is to update each other what we are working on in our investigation and what the plans are for this year.

Oleg announces that Igor could not attend today because he is busy working on a POI in our investigation.

Maartje explains the decision to go forward as planned with this meeting although Igor is not here; at a later moment in time we will see who will Contact Igor about the actions needed to be taken up by him/the SBU.

Maartje refers to the minutes of two last meetings asking if there are any comments.
David Oleg and ljeve state that they are fine with those minutes.

Results review committee (Mannie)

Maartje presents the conclusions made bythe review committee (appended) and
explains why we asked a committee (three selected people) to review the evidence.
The committee didn't look at the results of the forensic investigation and the radar
inquiry but only considered the evidence we had on specific persons.

The review committee indicates a problem regarding the intent of co-conspirators. It is
difficult to anticipate how a court would look at this, as there is no Dutch jurisprudence

in a similar case.

David: there is evidence on what the plan was because they asked for more arms.

State of play investigation Primo (Gerrit)

Gerrit presents an update of the investigation. The results of the investigation exclude
the alternative scenarios. We are waiting for the NLR report, which is expected to be
finalized within two weeks.

The forensic part of the investigation is accomplished. Recently the forensic
investigators came across a 2015 KFI-report (about the launch site). The report was
made for the CW). Oleg is not familiar with it, he will check if it is or otherwise can be
shared in the JIT. Maartje asks him to first contact Manon before it is shared.

Gerrit explains our approach to try to reach out to potential witnesses or people related
to POI's that live in countries where we can work. For instance a relative of a POI in the

Gerrit tells about Russian influence in elections in several countries like Bosnia and
Montenegro and parallels with the eastern Ukrainian conflict.

Maartje states that we are considering how deep we should get into these parallels, or
subjects like the command structure and for instance the involvement of oligarchs,
operating in the background.

It is a concern that the SBU doesn't make enough effort at hearing relevant witnesses
and/or persons of interest on the already long time ago shared list.

The posting of information on our VK-page (like for instance the Buk-image we posted
there) can effectively bring us new witnesses.

M further elaborates on the phone call he received from B, as a result of the witness
approach via direct messaging. The conversation of B has lead us to Budik, who was
being held as a prisoner of war by July 17, 2014.

Anne: He is an excellent witness. He saw and heard a lot while being a prisoner of war.
It was worthwhile to have an interview with him.

The report of the identification of Delphin is not yet ready.

0_|eg: we (SBU, not the Flu-speaking officers at the HO) are monitoring potential
witnesses as well as suspects and trying to get them on our side. Actually we are in
contact with someone who was on the launch site and we are trying to get that person
at our side. This is actually why Igor is not present today. We are aware of the
whereabouts of this person via current telephone interceptions.

Oleg tells that still new information, relevant to MH17, is found in old conversations.

Maartje states that it can be a problem if we keep receiving new data. How long can we
go on with keeping personnel in the Pic to analyze new intercepted data, how relevant

State of play investigation Primo (Gerrit)

Gerrit presents an update of the investigation. The results of the investigation exclude
the alternative scenarios. We are waiting for the NLR report, which is expected to be
finalized within two weeks.

The forensic part of the investigation is accomplished. Recently the forensic
investigators came across a 2015 KFI-report (about the launch site). The report was
made for the CW). O_|eg is not familiar with it, he will check if it is or otherwise can be
shared in the JIT. Maartje asks him to first contact Manon before it is shared.

Gerrit explains our approach to try to reach out to potential witnesses or people related
to POIs that live in countries where we can work. For instance a relative of a POI in the

Gerrit tells about Russian influence in elections in several countries like Bosnia and
Montenegro and parallels with the eastern Ukrainian conflict.

Maartie states that we are considering how deep we should get into these parallels, or
subjects like the command structure and for instance the involvement of oligarchs,
operating in the background.

It is a concern that the SBU doesn't make enough effort at hearing relevant witnesses
and/or persons of interest on the already long time ago shared list.

The posting of information on our VK-page (like for instance the Buk-image we posted
there) can effectively bring us new witnesses.

mfurther elaborates on the phone call he received from B, as a result of the witness
approach via direct messaging. The conversation of B has lead us to Budik, who was
being held as a prisoner of war by July 17, 2014.

m He is an excellent witness. He saw and heard a lot while being a prisoner of war.
It was worthwhile to have an interview with him.

The report of the identification of Delphin is not yet ready.

0_leg: we (SBU, not the Ru-speaking officers at the HO) are monitoring potential
witnesses as well as suspects and trying to get them on our side. Actually we are in
contact with someone who was on the launch site and we are trying to get that person
at our side. This is actually why Igor is not present today. We are aware of the
whereabouts of this person via current telephone interceptions.

Oleg tells that still new information, relevant to MH17, is found in old conversations.

Maartie states that it can be a problem if we keep receiving new data. How long can we
go on with keeping personnel in the HO to analyze new intercepted data, how relevant

is this, what can we expect from this. A lot of the people working in the field office have
been doing this so for three and a half years. That is a long period. We really have to
look for an end date. Not that NPN will leave Kiev all together, but we need to work to a
lesser amount of people. This is a conversation that we have to have with the SBU.

Gerrit: Our ambition is to gather evidence. Gerrit shows the composition of the
investigation team and tells that the help of the SBU is needed. The investigation
depends on the help of the SBU to do the interviews in Ukraine.

David endorses that the SBU is needed for witness opportunities. Oleg explains the
difficulties and the workload where of the SBU because of some threats.

Maartje stresses that we fully understand the pressure the SBU is under and that we are
aware of the importance of the other investigations that they are undertaking, but that
we simply cannot move on with our investigation without them.

0_|eg states that according to their law an Ukrainian official must be present during
witness interviews in Ukraine and that according to the JlT-agreement Ukrainian law
must be respected. He further states that he has a solution for the problem with the
witness interviews: he himself, like policemen are, is allowed to take interviews. So if
witnesses need to be interviewed, instead of the SBU he would be able to conduct the
interview. When asked he added that he would not only have to be present, but actually
should be doing the interview himself.

Manon responds by saying that this is not the answer, since Oleg is busy enough doing
his own job and besides that, conducting the interviews is one thing, but finding the
witnesses and bring them in is another thing. Only the SBU is able to locate witnesses
and bring them in.

David is willing to have someone working on the witness approach but a SBU
investigator is needed to join.

Gerrit announces that national police chief Akerboom, on behalf of the Dutch police,
wants to invite the SBU boss Grytsak to discuss the point that SBU help is needed.

0_|eg repeats what Igor has said before, that the best solution is to put Ukrainian officers
here in Driebergen so they are out of reach for new work. After a discussion on this
point, in which it is being stressed that the SBU is needed in Ukraine, because the work
that needs to be done, needs to be done there and cannot be done by NPN and AFP
alone, it is agreed that the best way forward is to plan a meeting between the head of
SBU Grytsak and Akerboom and possibly his Australian counterpart) in which to try to
get about 3 SBU-officers, exclusively dedicated to the MH17-ivestigation.

Maartie states that even if the answer is no, at least we know what can be counted on.
Gerrit makes clear that he respects the problems which Ukraine are faced with.

Gerrit: for a long time we thought Orion was the call sign of Andriy Ivanovich but
actually, after listening a phone call carefully, we found out this is might be not correct:
Andriy Ivanovich (himself) asks 'Which Orion'. So Orion probably is a third person. And

besides this phone call, we have not found any phone calls in which Al is being called

Results investigation Ukraine (Oleg)

Maartie introduces this topic saying that it is difficult to get clear what the SBU is doing
in the investigating at the moment. The information from Igor changes every now and
then. Afladds that Igor confirmed to her, during her last visit, that they were not
working on the case, unless occasionally, when the JIT would come up with something
very pressing.

O_|eg explains that the SBU continues to work on the case; there was no order to stop
working on it. Nevertheless, sometimes they get another task that takes full time and
attention of Igor and his team. So there are times like Anne has been told last time she
visited Kiev that no one is actually working on the case. The SBU simply doesnt have
the manpower.

Igor is working on a still classified MH-17 witness that might be very interesting. Once
possible Oleg will share more information about this.

Maartie states that Fred Westerbeke made an agreement with his Ukrainian
counterpart for a second Ukrainian prosecutor besides Oleg. In reaction to this Oleg tells
that the situation has not changed yet, there is still no back up for him.

Oleg endorses the importance to address this because he needs someone who is fully
dedicated to this investigation and can replace him. Especially when the prosecution
starts and one should be here in the Netherlands and the other one staying in Ukraine.

Afternoon session

State of play witnesses in the Netherlands and Ukraine (Anne/Gerrit/Oleg)
Anne presents an update about the witnesses that are interviewed and those they are
working on.

63299 -) plan is to transfer this witness to SBU. Oleg gives an update of the time frame
in the Bezyazykov case. The defense is delaying the case again and again. The case is
delayed for months.

Anne: The witnesses we most recently identified among the witness statements we
received from the German authorities, will be interviewed by us within two or three
weeks. The German authorities share their interviews with The Netherlands, but they
do not allow us to share there interviews with the JIT. One of these witnesses might be
interesting for the state responsibility case of Ukraine and if so, Ukraine has to do a
formal request to the Germans to receive that interview.

Maait'e and M put forward the question about the breach of Russias sovereignty
through the approach of witnesses who most probably reside in the RF, without
informing the RF authorities. As JIT we all must agree and endorse this point, although
work might be done by the Netherlands alone.

Reactions at this point:

Lieve states that approaching/making contact with a witness is not a problem for
Belgium, that'sjust an act of investigation (onderzoeksdaad). Even when the witness
will be actually interviewed via video link this is acceptable, as long as the witness is
cooperating. Belgium has worked in this manner with certain African countries.

Gerrit: it was B's own choice to contact us.

David says that for the AFP it is no problem to approach witnesses and have contact in
order to judge whether an interview would be relevant and to make practical
arrangements for an interview. To get a formal point of view from the AFP, I would have
to go back to our legal department, but I doubt that there will be problems since we are
talking about witnesses.

Oleg doesnt know since he has no experience on that matter. He doesn't see an issue
with that but he has to discuss this point first.

Anne: and what about luring the witness?

Wouter tells that in Belgium they even did it with suspects, but those were suspects that
were residing in countries that we had no treaties with. To lure a witness is no problem
at all.

David: considers this to be a covert operation. Should be possible with witnesses, as
long as no criminal offences are being committed, but again I would like to have some
time to Contact AFP legal department.

Oleg sees no problem if this is done by The Netherlands. It's like a regular intelligence
operation but he also wants to discuss this point back home.

Maartje states that we have to discuss this with Malaysia as well. Gerrit would like to let
Malaysia know what the outcome of the discussion with each individual country is. That
might make it easier for Malaysia to decide.

Maartje states that it is important that we have consensus on these issues with all JIT~
partners, so that we will also show consensus to the world in case an operation like this
would happen and become known.

Maartje asks for the opinions on engaging and interviewing suspects in RF, without the
authorities being informed and involved?

Oleg thinks that it is a problem according to Ukrainian law, we have to notify him of his
position as a suspect and he has the right to be assisted by a lawyer. In Ukraine you
cannot waive that right. The lawyer has to be present.

Maartje: and what if it is not the JIT that acts but only the Dutch (from Driebergen)?
Oleg: If this takes place under responsibility of the Dutch prosecutor and we are just
present i don't see a legal problem under Ukrainian law.

Maartje: Do you think that you can justify this and explain it back home?

Lieve tells that in Belgium they have a fairly lenient supreme court, but this wouldn't
pass the test because it violates the rights of suspects. Lieve explains that it would not
be a problem if they would make the suspect travel to another country.

Da_vidthinks that it wouldn't be admissible according to Australian law. Covert action
happens in Australia. David has to discuss this back home (AFP intern).

Oleg We dont have to do anything with luring of the suspect if it's done by the
Netherlands. When its the JIT it's another question.

Maartje finalizes this discussion saying for this moment enough is said. After
consultation back home it will be brought up again.

Internationalization of a future prosecution (Maartje)

Maartje presents ideas and possibilities for the internationalization of a future
prosecution, An international press centre is important for internationalization of the
communication. It makes clear that it's not only the Dutch prosecutor, but that is
spoken on behalf of the JIT. Another plus is that messages can be composed by native

Maartje postulates the idea of an advisory board of high officials that can advise on
important steps, such as issuing arrests warrants.

Lieve warns to be careful that it's not going to be a political board. That might give the
impression of not being independent.

David proposes that the advisory board is just part a larger prosecution team with
members of all of the JIT-members, rather than giving it a distinct title.

Oleg posits the problem that on his side high persons are not experienced in
investigations Do these people give practical advise? Do they need to read the file,
know the case?

Maartje amplifies that showing international support is the motive for creating this
advisory board. This board should be formed by people with judicial background from
JIT-countries and possibly also from other grieving nations.

Lieve thinks you don't need an advisory board if you have good international
communication. She suggests that Eurojust can be used to host meetings as Eurojust has
done before in this case.

Maartje argues that besides international communications harmony is needed: What if
Dutch prosecutors conclude to manslaughter and others say manslaughter is not
enough and reject the Dutch point of view openly. But also contra's can be seen: How
do you go further if one country doesn't agree?

Maartje introduces the idea of a JIT working force: presence of all JIT countries in the
court room. This should be a team of experienced prosecutors, who all know what goes
on in a court room. Maartje explains that we are thinking about the idea of having
colleagues in the court room to follow the trial and to report to the prosecution team at
the end of each day on how things went. Should other questions have been asked, what
has been said that is relevant, what should be investigated further? The reports will be
collected and assessed by the prosecutor.

David says he thinks forming a lit working group is a good idea. In stead of an Advisory
board he would suggest a kind oleT Support group. Using the term advisory' could lead
to questions like: arent the Dutch prosecutors capable of making their own decisions?

Expertise :

Special expertise is needed for the prosecution team. Two examples: weapon, military
strategy. Maartje explains that depending on the topic, international experts will be
consulted as well and maybe even added to the team 'behind the scenes. This idea is
being approved by everyone.

Accompany NoK:

Depending on the presence of foreign next of kin, the presence of victim aid people of
the respective countries to accompany there own NoK is needed as well. Everyone

Maartje concludes that it is important that we spoke about this topic, think about it and
keep in contact about this.

International communication (Mariolein K)
Marjolein Klaassen presents a communication Strategy of the JIT.

0_|eg thinks that in Ukraine it's complicated to have prosecutors-general speak about the
case . If we give them the opportunity to speak on behalf of the JIT they might take too
much space or not stick to lines. Since there are no communication officers (each PG has
it's own assistant that helps him on this point)0_leg himself is the easiest and best way
to be the point of contact in Ukraine for communication.

David states that the AFP has a communication team. This is a team of people, none of
them is specially dedicated to the MH17-case. David will ask to assign one of them on
our case and for that will get in contact with the AFP communication team.

Marjolein underlines that 'news' doesn't always need to be that actual.

Lieve says that up till now no questions have reached the Federaal Parket. Only since
yesterday a (general) communication officer is appointed for the Federaal Parket. If
necessary he can be asked to support in MH17-communication. Marjolein can contact

Marjolein emphasizes that the goal is to show that we still stick together as JIT.

Feedback visit London

Anne and Gerrit give a feedback of there visit to London last week.

Gerrit and Anne visited the UK to talk about the UKexperiences in the Litvinenko case.
The case officer and the SIG of the Litvinenko investigation explained various counter
strategies that they encountered from the RF.

IT-FiO meeting 26 January 2018 (Day 2)


Dutch prosecutor's service: Maartje Nieuwenhuis (chair), Manon Ridderbeks, Anne van
Dooren, Marvin Aaron (minutes)

Belgian Prosecutor's service: Lieve Pellens

Belgian Police: WouterWaumans

Dutch Police: Gerrit Thiry

Australian Federal Police: David Nelson, Alex Kazagrandi (interpreter)

Ukrainian Prosecutor's service: Oleg Peresada

1. Radar Data Analysis

Patrick Warnier (N PN) provides an update of the analysis of the radar data received
from the RF. The analysis consists of 2 separate analyses of the Utes-t Rostov radar,
because of the fact that the RF provided us with two data sets.

Each data set has been analyzed by a separate expert. The first data set contained
primary and secondary radar data accompanied by a software tool for visualization. The
expert's conclusion is that 1) there was no evidence of data manipulation, 2) that there
were no other objects in the vicinity of MH17, and 3) that supersonic missiles like the
BUK would likely have not been detected by the radar due to its processing and display
filters. Furthermore, an irremovable setting in the accompanying software would have
made it impossible to see a missile in the radar data even if it had been detected. This
circumstance led the team to request the RF to send the radar data in ASTERIX-format
(an exchange format that is commonly used to interpret radar data). The RF responded
by sending the requested radar data, but it seemed they had problems converting the
data to the ASTERIX-format. However, the expert was able to extract and analyze the
ASTERIX-data. His conclusions are that: 1) there is no evidence of data manipulation, but
the data can easily be manipulated without him being able to notice it, 2) the file
contains data in ASTERIX and other data, 3) there are no other radar detections in the
vicinity of MH17. Reasons for the absence of radar detections could be that possible
flying objects were too small for detection, the detection ofa flying object was filtered
out by radar settings or the detection was manually removed from the data.

Alex (AFP) asks if other planes were detected. Patrick confirms that all known planes
have been detected by the radar.

Anne (OM) asks if one of the reports mentions the areas that are not covered by the
radar. Manon (0M) responds that the first report covers this aspect.

Maartje (OM) asks Patrick whether there are any remaining unsolved questions. Patrick
responds that this is not the case, besides the three radar plots after impact of MH17.
According to Patrick, someone should explain that these plots could either be parts of
the aircraft or the missile, to avoid questions or complot theories in a later stage.

he participants discuss what should be the next step. Normally these findings would
not be released to the public, but it in this case the matter has generated a lot of
attention (of the next of kin and politicians). Gerrit (NPN) suggests that we can use the
radar findings in our advantage by using the media. Another question is whether the
findings should be (partly) visualized. In any case, the findings will first be presented to
the next of kin and then possibly in a letter to the Dutch Parliament.

2. Direct Messaging

Manon refers to the last meeting in May 17 in which this subject got a lot of attention.
The original plan was changed due to the fact that the SBU had safety-concerns about
sending messages through VK/OK and sending messages to persons we know are in the
RF. This resulted in a reduction of the amount of messages (66 messages to 55 persons)
that the team had planned on sending initially. A lot of effort has been put into this, and
the outcome has been positive: 10% of the approached persons responded. Another
effect is that the team now has the knowhow to undertake such a project. This makes it
worthwhile considering doing this again, but more often and in a smarter way. And this
leads us to the question whether messaging through VK/OK should be included in the
future and whether we should send messages to persons we know are in the RF. The
decision cannot be taken without lhor (SBU), but it seems appropriate to consider the
options beforehand.

Oleg (PGO) explains that the danger lies in the fact that VK/OK was created by the RF
intelligence agencies. The risks could be that we will end up with dead witnesses or
witnesses who have been instructed to provide a testimony that leads us down the
wrong path. Oleg agrees that a possible solution is sending messages to a group of
persons instead of individuals. If that doesn't yield good results, we can always consider
sending personal messages. Approaching high-profile persons (because they appear, for
example, in the media regularly) is probably less risky than approaching low-profile
persons who can disappear silently.

The participants agree that new rounds of direct messaging (including approaching
persons through VK/OK and/or persons we know are in the RF) is worth considering, The
first step should be the use of relevant fora like f.e. the 53" brigade or retired military.
We will have to sort out what for a we can use. Wouter and Lieve (Belgium) mention
that they may be able to provide staff to assist. NPN will get into contact with
Wouter/Lieve to work out the details when the time comes.

3. Update new legislation in Ukraine

Oleg gives a summary of the developments concerning the amendments of the
Ukrainian Criminal Procedural Code (CPC). These amendments were made in December
2017 and will take effect in March 2018. Aside from the negative consequences they
have on the work of law enforcement agencies, they could also have effect on the
transfer of proceedings of the MH17-case to the Netherlands.

The amendments have implications for the length of time of investigative activities and
they prescribe that suspects have to be notified. Suspects can appeal the notification of
suspicion after two months. Oleg had concerns that such a notification would provide an
opportunity for MH17-suspects to avoid prosecution in the Netherlands. Oleg and
Maartje raised this point, which led to letters from the Dutch Minister ofJustice to his
Ukrainian counterpart and a meeting in Kyiv which resulted in a possible solution.

The conclusion is that the old CPC will continue to apply to the MH17-case that was
registered in 2014. A transfer of proceedings will count as a final decision which is not
open to appeal in Ukraine. when it comes to the constitutional obligation to apply the
most favorable legislation in relation to suspects, the position is that Ukraine has
obligations under the treaty it has concluded with the Netherlands.

However, it is uncertain whether the Ukrainian Parliament will go along. Maartje
emphasizes that the CPC amendments have mainly been a concern because they may
hinder a transfer of proceedings. A transfer of proceedings is only necessary to be able
to prosecute on behalf of victims who did not have the Dutch nationality. So when the
amendments will not be changed as discussed in the meeting, this must be a joint

Anne asks whether the fact that the ATO is not being seen as a terrorism case anymore
has any effect on the MH17case. Oleg responds that it has no effect on the case
(however,judges may have a different interpretation). DNR/LNR will now be seen as
territories temporary occupied by the RF instead of terrorist organizations (because of
criteria in the law).

4. Other topics

Encrypted Telecom: Last time AFP said it would see whether it could find other
possibilities to decrypt, In the Netherlands no possibility has been found. David
confirms that they are still working on finding possibilities.

Report uniforms (RF SF, arrested persons, summer uniforms 53"): this report is
still being worked on in the HO, It would be helpful if the HO could compare
their information with other information that Ukraine has.

  Declassification list: Oleg should be given this list by the Field Office to check and
see what is still outstanding.

  FO-meeting: NLR-report will be clarified by one of the experts (half a day), the
other day and a half will cover other forensic reports. As regards the missile that we have for a 3" arena test, the question what to do with it will be put on the
agenda of the JIT leader meeting so that a final decision can be made.

Air Crash Investigation Documentary on MH17: The Foundation will send a letter
with regard to this documentary. Manon was invited to attend a preview session
with a delegation of the next of kin and the 058. There will be some changes to
the documentary because of some comments that were made during the session
(these comments related to inaccurate depictions of victims). A5 a result, it looks
like there will be two versions (the amended version will be broadcast in the
Netherlands and Belgium, the unamended one will be broadcast elsewhere). This
is not desirable. Manon will forward the letter of the Foundation to the others,
so that everyone can consider taking the appropriate steps to address this.


JIT 15 2016

Minutes JIT Leader meeting 15 April 2016

Belgium (BEL): Lieve PellenslBeigian Prosecutor), Mr Wouter Waumans (BF?) and Christian Van Der
Aa (BFP) (via video conference)

Driebergen [NL) and (AUS): Mrs Maarije Nieuwenhuis (Chair. Dutch Prosecutor), Mr Gerrit Thiry
(SID, NPN). Mr Andrew Donoghoe (SiO, AFP), Dennis Spies (Project Leader, Forensics) and Miss Kim
Giles (Minutes. AFP)

Malaysia (MVS): Mr Amar Singh Mr Lawhongsoon, Data Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria, (via video

Ukraine (UKR): Oleg Peresada (Ukrainian Prosecutor) (via video conference)

Meeting commences after several attempts to connect video conference with Ukraine. Dutch
members currently based in Kyiv will continue to attempt contact.

Action Points

A, Belgium To continue to liaise and report progress Belgian calculations of the three
alternative launch sites and the missile debris field 'Action item is complete; the report has
been shared with the MT.

a. Australia share Objective 3 81 4 report on 'Fragmentation pattern, comparisons of
apparent damage and best fit weapons investigations in the HT This report is almost

C. Netherlands -- Update the JIT on the requested 0W information and share the requested
OVV information with the HT partners e Radar data has been received and will be shared
with the JIT. Additional reports received from the Dutch Aviation Board were received last
week and will be shared soont

D. Australia/Malaysia - Report number 1239 includes the photographs of the pieces of
wreckage found in the personal belongings 0t victims. Australia has commenced checking
with members to determine whether anyone recalls the location where the pieces were
found at the crash site. This is important to establish continuity or chain ofcustody.

a. SIO NPN will send the photographs to Malaysia so they can conduct the same

Ukraine joins the meeting via video conference.

Prior to the meeting, AFP requested the proposal from the Ukrainian Forensics Institute (KFI) to
conduct Arena testing be included on the Agenda. This will be discussed after point 4.

1. Minutes meeting 12 February 2016

No further changes requested.


Forensics Timeframe

The Forensics schedule will be attached to the minutes. Most of this work is on track and
planned for completion in April and May. The Forensics work regarding soil samples (point 3) is
overdue. Dutch Forensics will complete a summary report on all forensics work, anticipated to
be completed in June. Dutch Forensics and NFI will then require an additional 4 months to
complete the paperwork.

Forensics meets every month and the next meeting will be on 28 April 2016. An Evidence Matrix
is being completed; it is in Dutch at the moment due to the technical language used but will be
translated into other languages at a later date,

3. Forensics comparison of soil samples

Forensics is currently comparing soil samples that were collected from the most probable
launch site during the investigation mission conducted last year. Soil samples were also received
from a journalist who also reported where he got the samples from. The Ukraine has also
provided soil samples from Kramatorsk, known to have been the launch site of a separate BUK,
for comparison. These samples were collected almost a yearafter the launch.

NL: If no relevant material is found in these samples, how far should Forensics go with this

Nothing of value was found in the soil samples from Kramatorsk that would lead to the
conclusion that going further with this work would produce relevant results. A report will be
written on these findings.

NL: We are of the opinion that this work should stop as it is not required to prove the location
of the launch site.
AUS: We agree.

BEL: According to the experts, should we be finding something in the soil to indicate a BUK

NL: Thats what the experts expected because of the force involved in launching a missile, but in
other situations, no one has ever collected soil samples aftera BUK launch before.

It is agreed upon that the work on the soil samples stops after the report is finished about

the work that has been done uptil now.


List of approximately 25 priority items for Forensics evidence

This has not been translated from Dutch yet, although the images are more important for
today. The images are of items that arrived in The Netherlands where chain of custody is not as
clear as preferred because of how people had to work in the Ukraine right after the crash. We
are attempting to collect as much information as possible for the locations where these items
were found. This is a list of priority items (20-25) which contribute to Forensic evidence.

NL: Please show to all your colleagues and see if anyone has photographs or notes or recalls the
wreckage to provide to us. This is only for those items we dont have locations for. If we get
locations for most of the items then it will be simpler for the rest of the items which we dont
have locations for.

NL: Does anyone know where the Boeing logbook was found?

MYS: Clarification sought that Netherlands wants to know where items were found at the crash

Proposal from KFI re Arena testing

A couple of weeks ago, KFI advised they wish to perform an Arena test to get information from
that test on what happens to a weapon when it explodes, and provides us the possibility of
obtaining more and other reference material. KFI have made a plan on how they wish to do it
and have sent the plan to JIT parties for peer review. This peer review has been received.

NL: This plan has been sent to Malaysia, if Malaysia has any suggestions or comments to add
please provide quickly as the JIT are collecting all feedback and the appointment with KFI has
been made.

NL: The next step would be to discuss with KFI what this testing would mean for timefrarnes,
resources. budgets etc. Is this plan possible? We have to know the answers to these before we
make a decision if we want to do it. This should be decided together by the JIT parties as it
involves a lot of resources and costs. We also have to ask what we would do with the outcomes,
who will do the calculations with the data and who will write the reports to be used in court.

AUS: This will close some evidentiary gaps we have especially in regards to Forensics. But we
have to decide who does the data analysis as its important and how we get that information in
a report that is useful for court. The Netherlands has already covered all of the questions we

BEL: We agree with Australia. it possible with our budgets, then we should do the Arena testing.
The JIT has been very thorough, but not doing this test would put the Prosecutors in a difficult
position to answer why we wouldnt do it. The Belgian experts working on the weapons are
more than happy to analyse the results.

MVS: What would be the evidence of this Arena test, considering the costs?

NL: This testing gives us evidence of speed and angles of the missile, which will help to make
calculations and determine the launch site. The smaller the launch site parameters are gives us
stronger evidence. The CW report has narrowed the launch site to an area within 300 square
km; we want to narrow that as much as possible. The tests would also give us more information
on what happens to the missile once it explodes and gives us reference material for what pieces
weve found.

UKR: We should do this testing because we cannot give any alternative forensic work to
disprove the Russian results. We will be asked why we could not do this experiment considering
the Russians did. Ukraine can provide a missile from the specific year we believe the BUK to be
from, and the results will be very important no matter the jurisdiction.

NL. In the end it should be a joint decision, and we should go stepeby~step and collect all
comments from the peer review within two weeks and get back to KFL
a) Plan KFI
b) Peer review of KFI plan
c) Update of KFi plan including the results of the peer review
d) Discuss the outcome of the peer review with the KFl including the possibilities, time
frame, costs etc
e) Decision on the joint plan and decision on who will do the calculation with the data
from the test
f) Reallsation of the plan (arena test)
g) Calculation
h) Delivery of the report

We will have to work on the questions we need answered regarding when, where, costings,
resources so we know what is involved and can make a decision.

6. Next of Kin

a. Evaluation, Next of Kin (NoK) meeting 8 March 2016
NL. The meeting was very successful and gave some peace and rest in Holland as there
were fewer questions from NoK and less buss in the media and in Parliament.

b. longreads, communication plan (Attachment 2)
NL: After the NoK meeting on 8 March, our communications people wrote a report on the
information shared and published it on the NoK website so that other NoK who could not
attend were able to read it. Australia has also had its own NoK meetings

AUS: Yes, people are still very upset and interested in what is happening with the
investigation. They are supportive otour actions as the .llT, pursuing the investigation.

NL: The NoK keep wanting more information, they want to know the investigation is
continuing and the website will be used to provide further information Our
Communications people have been asked to continue working on that. Attachment 2 has
been provided to give an outline of what they are planning, Specific subjects have been
suggested, such as:

- The Forensics investigation;

- The Ukraine Field Office;

- Weapons investigation;

- Cooperationin theJlT;

- investigation timeline; and

I Legal cooperation between countries including treaties and sovereignty.

We will put up a timeline of the investigation and what has happened so everyone can see
it clearly. We may give additional explanations on legal cooperation. Some people ask us
why we dont Just go over to Ukraine to deal with witnesses etc.

NL: Is everyone willing to cooperate in making this information for the NoK website, we
would like to show that all JlT countries are willing to work together in this way. Australia
has agreed to give an interview and provide photos. Are the other countries willing to do
the same?

MVS: 0k.

BEL: Yes of course. Lieve said she saw one of the latest documents with the pictures after
last NoK meeting and wanted to congratulate you on how professionally it was done; a
very good job being patient and thorough with NoK,

BEL: One question, which we have raised several times, is it possible to arrange for NoK to
visit where the bodies were found at the crash site at some point?

UKR: It is a very dangerous situation in this territory and there are heavy battles going on. It
will not happen In the near future.

NL: We have also given NoK the advice to not visit the crash site, especially not in an
organised group. The Netherlands and Australia have both had one NoK go by themselves,
We advise that it is not safe.

c. Next of Kin Summer meeting
NET: The communications people working on the NoK information have asked to join the
meeting in order to do some camera work, and take some photos as it is special that we
are meeting with people all over the world. i have denied this but do people agree that we
can arrange to take a picture with the set up before or after the meeting?
AUS: 0k.
MYS: 0k.
UKR: Pictures ok.
BEL: No objections.
NET: Ok, we will try to organise it soon.
The NoK have been promised that in summer more information on the weapon used and

the launch site would he provided We have to fulfil our promise to NoK. That information
should be provided in the week before 9 July (school holidays and Parliament break]; we

should try to set a date in the next two weeks. Malaysian NoK has asked we set a date soon
so they can make travel arrangements it they can.

NL: We must contact each other by email so we can draft content and possibly plan a
meeting in June so everyone can confirm what will be provided. People will ask us where
the weapon came from and who was in control of it at the time.

NL: Please let Maartje know ofany dates not possible for this meeting.

7. Radar imagery from the Ovv
We recently received the radar imagery the Russian Federation provided to the CW. This
imagery has a much larger scope than what we received from Russia directly. Aviation
police are writing a report on their findings. Aviation police have also seen small signals on
the radar imagery which may be a helicopter or a drone, which no one has mentioned

NL: We think we should include it in discussions with NoK in summer to be frank. We will
share the Aviation Police report with everyone for coverage so everyone can see it.

8t Around the table on the subject of prosecution and changes in the political field

MVS: The last meeting on prosecution was held in Kuala Lumpur. We are still trying to get approval
from the minister regarding the sharing of the costs for a tribunal,

NL: The next meeting is due to be in May and June. Before that, the Ukraine and The Netherlands
will be meeting on 28 and 29 April 2016 to discuss legal matters on national prosecution in both
countries, difficulties if suspects have to be extradited and the possibility oftransferring the ability to
prosecute to another country. Experts in national law from each country would have to discuss this

BEL: There is no change in our position; we will continue to work on statutes.
AUS: Is the next meeting in Belgium?
UKR: Ukraine cannot extradite its own citizens for prosecution in another country

NL: We have received the minutes from the meeting in Kuala Lumpur. We will discuss with Ukraine
on 28 and 29 April.

9. Around the table:

a. New names for the JIT Agreement
As always, please provide these names to Maartje for inclusion on the HT Agreement.

b. Warning to Next of Kin on website concerning witness re satellite imagery and person who
sends tweets about the investigation
A female going by the name Stefanini/Belaerts contacted Dutch Police saying she had new
satellite imagery for us. When we received it, it was satellite imagery you could get off the
internet. This female has also been in contact with one of the NoK families and


accompanied them to the NoK meeting, she has also been in contact with Dutch
politicians. The names she has been using are all fake, and the NoK have been warned, If
she comes up as contacting someone, keep in mind that she is fake

10. General Business
BEL: We will email Euro Control to ask for an update, and will keep everyone updated,

NET: The next meeting is scheduled for 3 June. We propose to make it 10 June, one month before
the NoK briefing in summer.


12 … op-or-not/
Author: Max van der Werff
MH17 Buk part: Prop or Not?
The shoot down of the Malaysian Boeing flight MH17 in 2014 is an event with significant geopolitical implications still unfolding. From day one Western sources claimed there is overwhelming evidence of Russias guilt in the tragedy.
After nearly six years at least some of the alleged overwhelming evidence will be tested in court. We take a closer look at a specific missile part that is already subject to scrutiny during the Dutch court proceedings.

For years the MH17 Joint Investigation Team claims it collected parts of the missile that downed the Malaysian Boeing. What if that turns out to be untrue?

Wilbert Paulissen, then head of the Dutch national crime squad, explained during the first JIT press conference 28 September 2016:

MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, fired by a Buk Telar and this Telar originates from the territory of the Russian Federation and after the launch was returned to the Russian Federation. This conclusion is for an important part based on a forensic investigation and in the animation we will explain how the investigation has contributed to this conclusion. [20Min30Secs]

The commentator in the video: During the investigation at Gilze Rijen (Dutch air base) several parts of a missile were found, such as a venturi and a wing. To establish the type of the missile, material from other missiles was collected for comparison. And:
Investigators have dismantled various missiles of the 9M38 series. This made it possible to compare the found parts with those of the dismantled missiles and it could be established that the found parts are indeed from a 9M38 series missile.

It took the investigators almost four years to disclose the serial numbers of the venturi and casing and ask the public for help during a press conference held 24 May 2018. While the venturi was collected (how, where and by whom remains unclear) and with other debris transported to the Netherlands, the story of the missile casing is quite different.
Casing of the Buk missile that allegedly shot down flight MH17

What does the Dutch police have to say about the missile casing?

The police report 26DLRPRIMO-05356 made public for the first time here today at The Hague Times states:

In the period 17 April up to and including 29 April 2015 four officers with special investigative powers with the Primo numbers 17- 496, 17-495, 17-511 and 17-512 respectively, secured four parts of which it is presumed that they originated from a missile within the framework of the recovery mission. The presumed missile parts were secured in or near the municipalities Petropavlivka, Oblast Donetsk situated in East Ukraine. []
In the presence of the investigation officers mentioned, a witness pointed out the finding locations of these parts. While doing this the witness said he had seen these parts there for the first time a few weeks before 17 April 2015.

Investigating officer known under primo-number 17-519 made video recordings. The area within which the parts had been found by means of orientation with the following GPS-angular coordinates:
48.141, 38.517
48.148, 38.529
48.144, 38.537
48.135, 38.526
Coordinates plotted on a map gives this result:
Trapezium shaped area about 1 km2 in size in which missile parts were allegedly found.
Members of the Primo investigation team heard several persons as witnesses. The identity of these witnesses is known to reporting police officer Thiry:

Of all the relevant findings, such as the finding, the conveying and the seizing of the missile parts mentioned, separate official reports were drawn up under oath or affirmation of office by the (special) investigating officers. In addition video or audio recordings were made during the investigative activities that were eligible for it such as witness examinations, these have been annexed to these official reports. As a consequence of the publication of these reports and recordings the witnesses mentioned in them could be seriously inconvenienced or be seriously hindered in the performance of their duties of professions (187d Code of Criminal Procedure), Officer Thiry reports.

Annexed to the report are:

1) photograph of a fragment; sin-number AAHP8536NL
2) photograph of a fragment; sin-number AAHZ3740NL
3) photograph of a fragment; sin-number AAHZ3739NL
4) photograph of a pipe ; sin number AAHZ4351NL


Requests and applications made by the defence team of suspect Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov
3 July 2020 the Dutch Court has rendered an interlocutory decision on requests and applications made by the defence, counsel for MH17 relatives and the Public Prosecution Service. The relevant sections for this article:

Furthermore, the defence notes that, in the case of certain materials secured in April 2015, i.e. three shards and a tube, the case file does not state how long they had already been at the crash site, and how they got there. The defence asks what investigation was subsequently conducted on site in Ukraine to rule out the possibility that those materials might have originated, for example, from a BUK missile fired by Ukraine prior to 17 April 2015 and/or that they were planted as evidence? The defence points out that, given the tenor of the JIT agreement, it is entirely plausible that Ukraine was in a position to exert compelling influence on the investigation carried out by the JIT. []

Section 7, para. 27
The court will also grant the request to interview the reporting officers named in official report of findings Primo-05356 on the special seizure of three shards and a tube, (Primo 17-496, Primo 17- 495, Primo 17-511 and Primo 17-512), to question them regarding their findings with respect to securing the alleged missile components.

Defence lawyer Ten Doesschate further complains about the fact that documents are still being shielded from the defense. That hinders the defense, she explains. In addition, the lawyers are not given any reason for the foreclosure against which they could object. She asks the court to determine that video recordings are added to the file. According to Ten Doesschate, these videos probably show where exactly pieces of the BUK missile were found and how those pieces were secured.

The Defence requests records of witnesses who found missile parts. Witness M58 some documents redacted. Some parts redacted regarding conditions for granting interviews these should be released.
Witness X48s statement is not included, just a summary. Even asked questions are blanked out. What happened during the making of this statement?

Is the defence team just trying to sow doubt with unsubstantiated requests?

Contrary to BBC reporter Anne Holligan who reported gasps as MH17 investigators reveal what appears to be part of Buk missile inside press conference and claims in absolute terms 9m38 missile series Buk missile responsible. Manufactured in Russia, a few hours after the presser the JIT publishes an extremely important nuance, completely ignored by all media:

The extent to which both parts belong to the missile fired by the BUK-TELAR of the 53rd Brigade cannot yet be stated with certainty.

Notice in the Dutch police report 26DLRPRIMO-05356:

a witness pointed out the finding locations of these parts. While doing this the witness said he had seen these parts there for the first time a few weeks before 17 April 2015.

That is to say, the casing and other parts have remained unnoticed for more than eight months.
Or, the casing with measurements of about one meter in length and diameter thirty centimetres has been planted.

Notice in the Dutch police report 26DLRPRIMO-05356 officer Thiry uses the term:

de vermoedelijke vindlocaties van genoemde raketonderdelen, which in the English version is translated as: the probable supposed finding locations of the missile parts.

If the prosecutors fail to unequivocally prove the missile casing is indeed from the Buk missile that shot down the Malaysian Boeing, they will fall back on other evidence. Nothing lost.
If the defence lawyers prove the casing is not part of the murder weapon, they will not have gained a lot. And besides, how could they prove the casing was planted if only the officers who recorded the testimonies can be interviewed, but the witnesses who allegedly collected the parts remain anonymous?



PROCES-VERHAAL van Bevlndlngen

Proces-verbaalnummer: 26DLRPrimo-05356


Onderzoek: Primo / 26149760Z

Betreft: Proces verbaal bijzonder beslag

Ondergetekende, Gerardus Wilhelmus Chrisliaan Thiry, hooldinspecteur van politie. coördinerend
teamleider van het onderzoek Primo verklaart het volgende:

In het kader van de recovery missie werden in de periode 17 april tot en met 29 april 2015 door de
(bijzonder) opsporingsambtenaren bekend onder respectievelijk Primonummer 17496. 17-495. 17-
511 en 17-512 vier delen veilig gesteld, waarvan vermoed werd dat deze afkomstig waren van een -
raket De vermoedelijke raketonderdelen werden veilig gesteld in ol nabij de gemeente
Petropavlivka, Oblast Donetsk gelegen in Oost Oekrai'ne,

De veilig gestelde onderdelen werden later door medewerkers van de Forensische Opsporing (F0)
herkend als zijnde raketdelen die pasten bij een Buk-raket die door hen werden voorzien van
respectievelijk de navolgende sin-nummers:

1) een schen; sin-nummer AAHP8536NL
2) een scherf. sinnummer AAH23740NL
3) een scherf. sin-nummer AAH23739NL
4) een buis :sin-nummer AAHZ4351NL

In aanwezigheid van genoemde opsporingsambtenaren. heeft een getuige de vindlocaties van deze
delen aangewezen waarbij door de getuige medegedeeld werd, dat deze delen enkele weken
voorafgaand aan 17 april 2015 daar voor het eerst door hem waren geZIen. Hiervan werden door
een opsporingsambtenaar video-opnamen gemaakt Door een opsporingsambtenaar. bekend onder
Primo-nummer 17-519 werd de omgeving waar binnen de delen waren aangetrollen vastgelegd
door middel van plaatsbepaling met de volgende GPS-hoekcoordinaten: 48.141, 38.517, 48.148,
38.529, 43.144, 38.537, 48.135, 33.526.

Een satellietfoto van Google Earth met daarop de hoekcoordinaten van net gebied waarbinnen de
delen zijn aangetroffen. is als bijlage bijgevoegd.

Door medewerkers van het onderzoeksteam Primo werden meerdere personen als getuigen
gehoord. De identiteit van deze getuigen zijn bij mij. verbalisant Thiry, bekend, Van alle relevante
bevrndingen, waaronder het aantreffen, het overbrengen en het in beslag nemen van de genoemde
raketdelen zijn door (bijzonder)opsporingsambtenaren alzonderlijke. respectievelijk op ambtseed
c.q. ambtsbelolte processen-verbaal opgemaakt. Daarnaast werden gedurende de daarvoor in
aanmerking komende onderzoekshandelingen. zoals verhoren. beeld- en/olgeluidsopnamen
gemaakt, die bij deze processen-verbaal zijn gevoegd. Door openbaarmaking van deze processen-
verbaal en opnamen kunnen daarin genoemde getuigen ernstige overlast ondervinden of in de
uitoefening van hun ambt of beroep ernstig worden belemmerd (167d SV)

Als bijlagen bij dit proces-verbaal zijn bijgevoegd:

1) toto van een scherf; sin-nummer AAHP8536NL

2) foto van een scherf; sin-nummer AAHZ3740NL

3) foto van een scherf; sin-nummer AAH2373SNL

4) foto van een buis sin-nummer AAH24351NL

5) een satellietfoto van Google Eanh met daarop het gebied van de vermoedelijke vindlocaties van
genoemde raketonderdelen.

Hiervan is door mij op ambtseed opgemaakt; gesloten en ondertekend dit proces-verbaal te
Driebergen op 24 september 2015;

De verbalisant.

: : :
/ 26149760Z

, , , , Primo, , ::
() , Primon 17-496, 17-495, 17-511 17-512 , , 17 29 2015 . , , .
- (FO) , "", sin.:
1) ,  AAHP8536NL
2. ,  3740
3. , 3739
(4) , 4351
, , 17 2015 . . , Primo 17-519, , , GPS:: 48.141, 38.517, 48.148, 38.529, 48.144, 38.537, 48.135, 38. 526.
Google Earth, , .
. , . , , , ()
. , , , -/ , . (187d Sv).
1) ,  AAHP8536NL
2) ,  3740
3) ,  3739
(4) ;  4351
5) Google Earth, .
, 24 2015 .


, AAH23739NL .


Data cable during identifcation at Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base.




» MH17: ? »  »  + MH17 " JIT"