Silly remarks and nonsense requests by Dutch lawyers defending MH17 suspect Oleg Pulatov #18.Ukraine did not have R-33 and R-37 missiles

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

During the plea by the Dutch lawyers Boudewijn Van Eijck and Sabine ten Doessschate while defending their client Oleg Pulatov many silly remarks and nonsense requests were made by these two Dutch lawyers. This post is part of a serie of blogposts showing these silly remarks made at June 22 and June 23. All blogposts on this topic can be read here

In the plea the lawyers requested to interview an investigator codenamed Primo 17-311 and Bilov. an Ukrainian Air Force soldier to hear  as to whether MH17 may have been shot down by an R-33 or R-37 missile from a Ukrainian fighter.

However, the police dossier is clear. Ukraine did not have any R-33 or R-37 missile.

Bilov has stated that Ukraine did not use R-33 missiles. The MIVD has stated that Ukraine did not use R-33 or R-37 missiles. NLR has excluded the R-33 and R-37 missile as a possible cause of damage to MH17 because those missiles do not contain butterfly-shaped fragmentation parts.

Also, both R-33 and R-37 can not be fitted on a Su-27 warplane. Only R-27 and R-73 with rod warheads can. So Ukraine simply had no fighter aircraft capable to carry the missiles mentioned by the lawyers.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.