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.
At Friday June 26 the public prosecutor made a comparision to MH17 using an example of a murder case.
Let’s take a step back and see how it works in other criminal cases. Take the example of an investigation into a liquidation in the criminal circuit. Instead of the intended competitor, an accidental passer-by was shot on the street. The suspect is being prosecuted for involvement in that murder. If the defense then wants to investigate, as an alternative scenario, whether the victim could not have been stabbed to death, that wish will run counter to the finding that the victim died from bullet wounds and that there are no stab injuries, that there are tap conversations in the file in which the suspects shoot the victim. organize in advance and evaluate afterwards, and the statement by an accomplice who discarded the firearm on request after the crime. In such a case, it does not serve a reasonable purpose to investigate whether the victim also has injuries that may have been theoretically caused by a knife, or to hear the neighbor from two blocks away testify about his allegation that he heard in the pub that the victim was stabbed.
Later the response of Sabine ten Doessschate was very silly. She says “this sounds very logical, why would further investigation be required to investigate if someone was murdered using a knife”. She extends the metaphor. “Can you state an investigation if a knife was used is not required if it is not sure if these wounds are clearly caused by a gun.? Also if these wounds are according others caused by a knife. Also when in the body some limited amounts of remains are found. When that body was for months at the crime scene and for everybody accessible. And there are many eyewitness who state they saw somebody carrying a knife. “
“Can you then still say an investigation to find out if a knife was used does not make sense? ”
This statement by ten Doessschate shows the extreme weak position of the defence. Her position is based on clearly not neutral and many factual incorrect eyewitness statements and statements by proven incompetent people like Haisenko and Biedermann.
Her eyewitness are not reliable as these were mainly family and friends of the suspect. Some of the eyewitness saw one suspect, other saw two or three. Also camera’s which observed the crime scene did not notice anybody wearing a knife. Camera’s at streets leading to the crimescene observed someone carrying a gun walking into the direction of the crimescene. Camera’s did not observe someone carrying a gun. People who stated they saw stab wounds were not at the crime scene itself but watched photos published by the newspapers. They are not experts on forensics and make silly comments about the police. As the body was left unattended at the crime scene anybody could have removed cardridge cases of the bullets. People were seen near the body wearing knives and could have removed evidence.