An unexpected and largely anecdotal turn was taken by the trial of the death of the Malaysian passenger Boeing MH17 and 298 of its passengers, shot down, as the investigation established and confirmed by the Dutch court, by a missile fired from the territory of the unrecognized DPR. It turns out that the Russian side, not resigned to the verdict of the court in The Hague, found a new reason for the death of the aircraft and its passengers. Technical expert Vadim Lukashevich , who closely followed this process, writes about this in his blog:
“As they say, I cannot remain silent... Vladimir Faibyshev and I are now translating into Russian a 12-day speech by the defense of Oleg Pulatov (read - Russia) in the court of The Hague in the MH17 case.
I naively thought that all Russian myth-making on the MH17 topic had already ended, but on March 11 the defense issued a new pearl - the Malaysian Boeing could have been shot down, it turns out, by the Ukrainian Su-25 attack aircraft with the help of ... do not believe it ... a salvo of NARS (unguided aircraft rocket) S-5M air-to-ground class, which the defense classifies as an air-to-air missile. This so-called. The “rocket” was put into service as early as 1955 ( modification S-5M - in 1959, i.e. 55 (!) years ago) and was originally really created to destroy air targets, but already from the 1960s it became used exclusively to destroy ground targets.
The whole picture of the defeat of MH17 excludes even the theoretical use of the C-5M, but objective data and common sense protect up to one place ...
But this is a really exciting western!
For example, on March 11, the defense complained that the investigation was looking for fragments from the Buk missile among the wreckage of the Boeing, and not from a certain missile in general - they say, the investigation initially looked for only the Buk, which is why it was found (fragments of the rocket design and ready striking elements of its warhead).
Wait laugh, this is just an introduction.
Demonstrating the bias of the investigation, the lawyer says the following:
- In the NFI report I just mentioned, and in the subsequent report, there is the following remark regarding the exclusion of physical evidence from the study.
“An inventory of rod-shaped fragments found in the wreckage of the aircraft is necessary. After this inventory, an analysis can be assigned, in which it will be possible to answer the 6 questions indicated in the report.
And there is a reference to the decision of January 20, 2015, when it was decided to focus on the selection of fragments of the Buk as a used weapon.
Because of this choice, no further research has been conducted into whether the composition of other fragments that may have belonged to the [other] weapons used bear a resemblance to fragments found elsewhere in the [aircraft] wreckage. So we see that the study acquires a narrow framework.
In other words, the defense is hinting at the fact that some rods were found among the wreckage of the Boeing, from further investigation of which the investigation was eliminated, focusing on the search and study of fragments belonging to the Buk.
If we take the words of the lawyer literally, then among the wreckage of MH17 were found damaging elements of the rod warhead, which are equipped only with air-to-air missiles. And since fragments of the Buk missile were nevertheless found among the wreckage of the aircraft, then, according to the defense, the MH17 flight was shot down simultaneously from the ground (Buk) and from the air (for example, R-60 missile). That is, two at once. different
I relaxed early...