Forensic research confirms SBU tapes are genuine recordings of voice separatist leader

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta did a forensic investigation (english language article here) into the voice heard on one of the telephone conversations tapped by Ukraine investigation bureau SBU. In that conversation a former Russian officer working for the separatists was talking about the logistics of the transport of a BUK surface to air system in Eastern Ukraine.

Many Ukraine press reported about the investigation by Novaya Gazeta. Unian reported in English language here.

Dutch BNR , Volkskrant and RTL Nieuws on TV reported about this news. Later in the evening of April 25, ANP made a news item. This was copied by Telegraaf, AD and Parool.

Dutch Nieuwsuur and EenVandaag covered the news on tv at April 26.

Novaya Gazetta is expected to be publishing a second investigation related to MH17 soon.

The Joint Investigation Team concluded in September 2016 that a BUK surface to air system which was brought in from Russia shot down MH17. The BUK was returned  to Russia a few hours later.

The voice on the SBU recording was stated by Swedish forensic experts as high probability to be of Sergey Dubinsky. Also known as Sergey Nikolaevich Petrovsky (call sign Khmuryi, Bad Soldier).

Dubinsky is a Russian war veteran , fought in the Soviet-Afghan war and later in Chechnya, and later served in the 22ndSpetsnaz Brigade, a unit connected to the ‘GRU’, the Main Intelligence Directorate.

Around 2004 Dubinsky retired from the Russian army.

In April 2014 Dubinsky started to work for the GRU( Military Intelligence Service) of the Donetsk People Republic (DPR). Back in April 2015 Dutch newspaper NRC published this english article about the tapes and role of Dubinsky. At that time the real name of Dubinsky was not yet known.

It is because of Igor Girkin’s e-mail account that was hacked in May 2014 that the true identity of Sergey Petrovsky, which is not his real name, came to light. Bellingcat published an investigation on Dubinsky in February 2017.

Dubinsky also was Deputy Minister of Defence of the Donetsk People’s Republic during the time MH17 was shot down.

The Kremlin, Russian media  and Kremlin trolls said the tapes were fake. However the forensic match of the voice of Dubinsky is part of a list of many other proof the SBU tape is genuine.

  1. In April 2015, chief prosecutor Fred Westerbeke of the Joint Investigation Team spoke of “authentic recordings” that “were analyzed through and through” (source)
  2. Dubinsky himself admitted on a Russian internet forum that it was his voice on the SBU tape
  3. Novaya Gazetta talked to a friend of Dubinsky named  Serhiy Tiunov. He was the leader of the self-defense force of [the Ukrainian city of] Zaporizhia and a veteran of [the Soviet] Afghan war. Tiunov  recognized the voice on the SBU tape as his comrade-in-arms Dubinsky

In addition, JIT was not allowed by the Luhansk Republic leaders to investigate the telephone towers in Luhansk. The Netherlands largest newspaper Telegraaf reported about the obstruction of the criminal investigation in August 2015. This is another proof of involvement in the shotdown.


More on Dubinsky

Dubinsky started to work for the Donetsk People Republic (DPR) intelligence service in April 2014. He stopped in 2015 and moved to Rostov on Don in Russia. He still lives there. According Novaya Gazeta Dubinsky was paid by the Russian Ministry of Defense till mid 2015.

Sergey Dubinsky was granted the higher rank of major general in the Donetsk People’s Republic in, apparently, August 2014, shortly after the downing of MH17,

Paul Kanygin, a journalist working for Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, was able to find a friend of Dubinsky. This friend named Serhiy Tiunov , is the leader of the self-defense force of [the Ukrainian city of] Zaporizhia and a veteran of [the Soviet] Afghan war. In the late 1980s, Tiunov and Dubinsky served in the reconnaissance company of the 181st regiment in Afghanistan.

In the photo below Serhiy Tiunov is seen on the right. In the middle Dubinsky.

Tiunov and Dubinsky spoke to eachother on the phone a couple of times and meet once in October 2014 in Donbass.

According to Tiunov, Dubinsky was only responsilbe for the transport of the BUK. He is not responsible for the downing. Dubinsky told Tiunov “The freaks from Moscow did it!”.

Tiunov visited the Netherland in January 2017 according a posting on his Facebook.

The Yandex translation is

Finally home. Report on poezdku in the Netherlands will not. First, it is not obliged to, because of budgetary or voluntary funds are not spent, all costs were borne by the receiving party; secondly, who cares will tell you in a private communication, so there will be fewer FB-sracha; third, is already made the decision to move away from the public reporting on their activities for who should and who can systematically and objectively gather information, and they know why and the rest. Personally, I was pleased that I was the only invited expert from Ukraine, when considering the issues that will decide the fate of the country.

Voice investigation

The Novaya Gazetta journalist called Dubinsky. He recorded the telephone conversation and contacted experts of  University of Gothenburg ,  Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology.The voice analysis was carried out by the Voxalys laboratory, which conducts forensic examinations by order of the prosecutor’s office, police and courts of Sweden.

The researcher was not told about the context of the investigation. When University of Gothenburg performs an analyse of a voice, +4 means the 2  voice samles analysed are extreme likely to be similar. -4 means the two voices belong to different person. 0 means the analyst is not able to determine of both voices are the same.

University of Gothenburg presented a +2 meaning the voices are very similar.




Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

2 Comments on Forensic research confirms SBU tapes are genuine recordings of voice separatist leader

  1. This conclusion is made when analyzing the sound from the video recoded in youtube?
    Steep in your West experts, I envy, out of nothing candy …. For that quality, it is more suitable.
    ” it was not possible to carry out reliable identification studies of the persons involved according to the voice and sounding speech because of low characteristics in terms of bit rate, total stream, bit depth and frequency”
    For the propaganda is more beautiful
    +2. The result of the examination is that the material is originated from the same person. “

  2. The only purpose of Tiunov’s story is to create an evidence of Russia’s “intent” to shoot down a passenger airliner. Without proving intent, Kiev can’t substantiate its “terrorism” accusations against Russia. So, SBU asked Tiunov, a fierce pro-Maidan activist, to tell a touching story about his friendship with Dubinsky. The key part of the story is the statement “The freaks from Moscow did it!” allegedly made by Dubinsky. What Kiev wants to be implied by this “disclosure” is that the shootdown was not a mistake – it was planned by Moscow.

    The “news” that Dubinsky was responsible for the transportation of the Buk is not a news at all. Bellingcat wrote about Dubinsky in February and early March. In their article of March 2, they cite, in particular, Dubinsky’s own words on a Russian forum in Aug 2015. A forum user suggested that SBU’s 17 July recording of Khmury [timed at 9:08 am] was a fake. But Khmury/Dubinsky replied: “The recording is authentic”.

    in my comments of 3 March I wrote that Khmury’s phone calls in the morning of 17 July were artificial, their purpose was to make SBU believe that the Buk would arrive from Donetsk, while in reality the Buk was being transported via Krasny Luch. I described all that in detail in the comments of 3 March.

    With all the respect for Novaya Gazeta, I can’t help feeling perplexed at their tunnel vision. They have got information on MH17 that clearly contradicts the official narrative, but they can’t see the contradictions. In mid-July 2015 they wrote that their correspondent (I guess Pavel Kanygin) collected a lot of info from separatists about the Buk. According to that info, the Buk arrived via Krasny Luch and escaped to Russia via the shortest route south of Snizhne. It is not compatible with the Lugansk-Donetsk route but Novaya Gazeta was not confused. Also, in the same edition of mid-July 2015, Novaya Gazeta wrote that their freelancer had seen the Buk in Snizhne around 12:15 pm and that locals had seen it in the morning. Again, it is not compatible with the timeline of the official narrative, but who cares.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.