Top Tweets for #Durch

Wow! Declassified text of Ukrainian court verdict in March 2025 confirms false flag shooting of Maidan activists in Khmelnytsky by far-right Maidan activists during Maidan massacre & confirms my study findings. Expert examination of videos, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, on-site investigative experiments, and witness testimonies & investigations by SBU & Ukrainian military prosecutor showed that gunshots made from SBU veranda, which was occupied by Maidan activists, killed elderly female Maidan protester & wounded 4 others. Verdict acquitted ex-head of Khmelnytskyi SBU & SBU Alfa officer for shooting of these Maidan activists because of lack of evidence and because of such evidence of false flag shooting. The verdict cites various eyewitnesses who testified that several Maidan activists broke into veranda (extension) of SBU building, that gunshots at Maidan activists came from this veranda when it was occupied by "radical" Maidan activists & that accused SBU officers did not make these gunshots. The verdict states that investigation after it was transferred to the same special department of Prosecutor General Office that investigated Maidan massacre "was not conducted fully and comprehensively, and was also obviously biased" and "committed a number of significant violations of the requirements of the Criminal Code, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which entailed the recognition of evidence as inadmissible." Relevant parts of verdict: (automatic translation): - Security Service of Ukraine "commission, based on the results of an official investigation involving specialists in firearms and tactical and special training of the CSO "A" of the SBU, concluded that "the burst of shots from automatic weapons that rang out on February 19, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. and as a result of which some civilians who were near the administrative building were injured, was fired from the vestibule of the central entrance of the Department, where at that time unidentified individuals from among the aggressive protesters were located"; - expert's conclusion based on the results of the ballistic examination of weapon traces, gunshot traces and situational circumstances of the shot under No. 5935/5936/16-33 dated 01.07.2016, from which it follows that: 1. According to the results of the investigative experiment dated 12.04.2016, 18.03.2016 and 25.02.2016, it can be concluded that under the known circumstances and materials of the criminal proceedings, it was not possible to fire shots into the lower right static sash of the glass extension to the central entrance to the department, nor from the second floor of the administrative building, nor from the steps between the first and second floors of the Department. 2. The shots were fired from the middle of the glass extension of the central entrance of the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, outside. 3. The shots were fired from inside the glass extension of the central entrance of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, to the outside; the weapon, at the time of the shots, was behind the back of the victim PERSON_131, at the level (or below) of the belt; - expert opinion based on the results of the forensic examination of the video recording dated 12.08.2016 No. 10358/10359/16-35, from which it follows that... according to their general and individual acoustic parameters, the experimental shots fired in the extension of the USBU administrative building in Khmelnytskyi region correspond to the shots of the second stage (out of eight shots) recorded in the studied video recordings; - protocols of investigative experiments with the participation of PERSON_22 [accused SBU Alfa officer] as a witness dated 09.03.2016, conducted by the previous pre-trial investigation body, from which it follows that from the place where PERSON_22 was on the 2nd floor, it was not possible to fire shots at the lower part of the door of the central entrance of the office covered by an anti-vandal roller shutter. Under such circumstances, the court finds the information from the aforementioned investigative experiments and expert conclusions not refuted. On the morning of February 19, 2014, Colonel PERSON_21 was informed by the head of the USBU in the Ternopil region, Colonel PERSON_141, about the movement to the city of Khmelnytskyi of a group of radical individuals numbering about 80 people, whose goal was to organize the seizure of the USBU building in the Khmelnytskyi region and gain access to the storage areas of weapons and ammunition. This information was confirmed by the ZND department of the USBU, in addition, it was established that in the courtyards of residential buildings located near the administrative building of the Department, radical individuals who arrived from the western regions of Ukraine were preparing for future active actions, in particular, filling glass bottles with an incendiary mixture. Taking into account the available information, the leadership of the USBU concluded that radically minded protesters were preparing to implement a planned scenario of seizing the building of the Department, as happened on February 18, 2014 in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil regions. Under such circumstances, the defense's claim, with reference to the evidence presented, regarding the possibility of causing bodily harm to the victim on February 19, 2014, at 12:36 p.m., near the USBU in Khmelnytskyi region by third parties is not excluded, which in turn makes it impossible for the court to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt on the involvement and guilt of PERSON_22 in the charges brought. Taking into account the above, the court comes to the firm conviction that the conclusions of the pre-trial investigation body on the guilt of PERSON_21 [Khmelnytsky SBU head] and PERSON_22 [SBU Alfa officer] in the presented accusation were based mainly on assumptions not confirmed properly by admissible, reliable and sufficient evidence. Not only the involvement of the accused in the commission of the criminal offenses with which they are incriminated, that is, the causal connection between the actions of the accused and the consequences in the form of causing bodily harm to the victim, but also the generally unlawful nature of the actions of the accused remained unproven." https://t.co/LzuJ51XFfH