A court in the Netherlands left one version of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing MH17 in Ukraine in 2014. This was stated by the chairman of the judicial board Hendrik Steinheis at the hearings, he is quoted by Interfax.
“The defense is not faced with the task of proving the correctness of alternative scenarios of what happened,” Steinheis said. Thus, the court rejected requests from the defense to investigate alternative versions of the disaster. Now, if the prosecutor's office fails to prove its version, this will lead to the acquittal of the accused.
According to the chairman, the Russian side just had to try to prove that specific accusations against Oleg Pulatov were groundless. The court added that the requests could have been submitted earlier, and now the Netherlands will seek to ensure that the investigation goes “without wasting time.”
At the MH17 hearing in June, Dutch lawyer Sabine ten Dusshate, representing the accused, Oleg Pulatov, asked to investigate NATO's satellite information.
In the same month, prosecutor Ward Ferdinandusse cited facts that refute the version of the crash due to a fighter attack. As arguments in defense of his words, he cited several facts. Among them – primary radars that did not record other aircraft, too significant damage to MH17 and the lack of such information on voice recorders.
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 on flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down in the skies over the Donetsk region on July 17, 2014. There were 298 people on board, all of whom died. The international investigation team, following the investigation, named the names of the defendants in the case of the Boeing crash. These are the Russians Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Oleg Pulatov, Sergey Dubinsky and the Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko. All of them, according to the investigation, are related to the movement of the Buk complex, from which, presumably, the liner was shot down.
