Talk:Odessa Trade Union massacre/Investigations

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to: navigation, search


Six Official Investigations

The UNHRC (June report PDF) and Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs both put the number of official investigations at of the Odessa massacre at six. As MFA lists them, July 23 (auto-translated):

  • The Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine;
  • GPU (in terms of production in respect of unlawful conduct of police officers);
  • SBU (in terms of production in relation to attempts by forceful overthrow of the constitutional order of the state);
  • The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for human rights;
  • Temporary investigative Commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the investigation into the death of citizens in the cities of Odessa, Mariupol, as well as in other cities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine (VSC created 13 may 2014, part 10 of deputies, Chairman of the VSC elected MP from the Party of regions faction of Anton kiss, Deputy - MP from the faction of the "Batkivshchyna" Alexander Oak);
  • a special Commission composed of members of the public under the auspices of the Governor of the Odessa region).

If this last refers to the "independent" #May 2 Group], its being under the "auspices" of governor Nemirovsky, a massacre apologist and organizer, is clearly problematic.--Caustic Logic (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

(moved from Talk:Odessa Trade Union massacre
  • May 8: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch jointly call for an impartial investigation, relating what was reported so far, with questions about police response and other issues. They put the onus on Kiev to be fair, and note their promise to work with experts from Europe and Israel.
  • May 12 - formation of May 2 Committee. The May 2 Committee, a panel of civic leaders, journalists, experts coordinated by social worker Sergey Dibrov. A May 19 report has Dibrov explaining (it seems) it wasn't to replace official investigations but to do their own work since people shouldn't just trust it. Pro-federalists opposed the inclusion of journalist Yuri Tkachev, but Dibrov and others insisted he stay for a balanced view. Tkachev earlier said, in an interview with DW, that federalists started the trouble, and the first victim was on the Euromaidan side. The latter is apparently undeniable, the former seems true on the surface but is well worth questioning) while noting the Maidanistas did come armed and ready to be provoked ... "We want to show what happened and when, having painted events by the minute," said Dibrov. They planned to annoince their first findings in early June.
This should announce the creation of a "Temporary investigative commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to investigate the facts of death of people in the cities of Odessa, Mariupol and other cities of Donetsk and Lugansk Ukraine (TSC created May 13, 2014 consisting of 10 deputies, elected chairman of the TSC MP from the "Party of Regions" Anton Kisse (Кіссе), deputy - MP from the Union "Fatherland" Alexander Dubovogo..." (as mentioned by MFA July 23) Interesting tidbit: " Ex-Head of the Odessa Police Dmitry Fuchedzhi accuses deputy from the party "Fatherland" Alexander Dubogovo (Александра Дубового) of organizing mass riots in Odessa May 2..." (Antimaydan Odessa)
  • June 2: Party of Regions has started an investigation www.newsru.ua/ukraine/02jun2014/efram.html
  • June 15 UN report

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf This calls Odessa "the most serious single incident of significant loss of life in Ukraine since the killings on Maidan," and noted that the government is blocking oversight of its dubious investigations:

...six official investigations have been established. The main bodies undertaking such investigations are the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and the State Security Service in Ukraine (SBU). It is with regret that the HRMMU reports a lack of cooperation from both governmental bodies, particularly at the central level with the HRMMU, which has been preventing the HRMMU from conducting a proper assessment of the progress made.
  • August 5 "Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema on Saturday urged to speed up the investigation of the May 2 tragic events in Odessa, which claimed the lives of at least 48 people and injured over 200. “In this context I would like to pay attention to the necessity of a speedy legal decision, concerning criminal proceedings over the tragic events in Odessa in early May,” UNIAN news agency quoted Yarema as saying." Ria.ru
  • September 4: "On September 4 Chairman of the commission of the Odessa regional council Grigory Yepur said that the commission had disbanded itself. The investigation has been conducted by the Prosecutor's General and the Interior Ministry of Ukraine which are not accountable to deputies of a local level, Yepur said." (Itar-Tass, Sept. 8) --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rada Investigation Report


The Dumskaya critique by Oleg Konstantinov says (translated) the report "raises questions" about "factual errors, which are abundant in the document - it confused even the leaders of organizations and institutions that have been actively involved in the tragedy," an issue already covered by "Timer." He then notes conclusions - signed off on by all members - that contradict what some members (specified: Svetlana Fabricant and Anton Dorohov) had earlier said, and in fact what they had agreed to sign - a version of the report already given to Dumskaya that differed in at least 4 major ways from the later official version. This raised the question if they changed their minds, were forced to sign, or what. Apparently, it was changed after their signatures (see below) --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing: "How all these changes have changed the essence of the report, judge for yourself. We hope to get explanations for the transformation of text here with the Committee Chairman Anton Kisse and his Deputy Alexander Dubogov." (The 4 Redactions outlined below) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The Ukrainian experts have failed to establish the exact causes of mass death of people in Odessa on May 2, the Ukrainian Rada said on its website, citing an investigative commission of the Ukrainian parliament for an investigation into mass death of citizens in the building of the Trade Unions in Odessa, in Mariupol and other cities of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.--Caustic Logic (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"In the absence of modern equipment local experts were unable to establish objective reasons of the people's death," the investigative commission said in its account available on the website.
"Only with the assistance of international experts it will be possible to find out if there were hazardous substances in the bodies of the victims who died in the building of the Trade Unions in Odessa," the commission said.
Nonetheless, perhaps confusingly:
The commission reported that 48 forensic examinations of the bodies killed in Kulikovo field square had been carried out. All in all, 85 forensic examinations and 160 other tests were appointed, the commission said.
The results of the forensic tests showed that nine people died of poisoning by toxic fire fumes, thirteen were poisoned by hazardous substances which caught fire, twelve died of heavy burns of the respiratory system and body burns and eight were killed, falling from an altitude of eight meters. Six died of fatal gunshot wounds, the commission said.
Objective reasons for the loss of life during tragic events in Odesa on May 2 cannot be obtained due to the lack of modern equipment from local experts, according to members of the temporary investigative commission of the Verkhovna Rada Committee investigating the deaths of citizens in Odesa, Mariupol and other cities in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.

Well, someone had planned to call on experts months ago. As Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch mentioned on May 8: "The newly appointed police chief said in a statement to the media that a team of Kiev investigators was working on establishing what had happened and that they would soon be joined by independent experts from Israel and Europe." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Objective reasons for the loss of life during tragic events in Odesa on May 2 cannot be obtained due to the lack of modern equipment from local experts, according to members of the temporary investigative commission of the Verkhovna Rada Committee investigating the deaths of citizens in Odesa, Mariupol and other cities in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.
The final report about the results of the probe into the massacre in Odessa on May 2, 2014 and into other episodes of violence in other Ukrainian cities that was published by the Verkhovha Rada /parliament/ has been fabricated, Odessa-based media said on Tuesday.
The report of the investigation commission set up within the Verkhovna Rada was presented to journalists by the commission’s secretary Svetlana Fabrikant.
(the "media" isn't named or linked to, but seems to be Dumskaya, cited above. This I-T article provides details on what was cut, as well as what was inserted, that I'd rather cover under the primary source.

MP Fabrikant swiftly confirmed that the report had been altered after her signature, into something she insisted her name be taken off of.

Svetlana Fabrikant, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and secretary of the parliamentary commission probing into the massacre in Odessa on May 2, 2014 and into other episodes of violence in other Ukrainian cities, on Tuesday withdrew her signature under the commission’s report, saying it had been falsified.
“Regrettably, other members of the commission made some adjustments to the document after I had signed it,” she said. “After the document was published on the official website of the parliament, I found my signature under a different document and I cannot agree with it.” ... “Key participants in those developments had never showed up at the commission’s sessions. The reluctance of officials to provide explanations to the commission is an eloquent answer. What kind of openness and joint work can we speak about?” she said, adding that the authorities were apparently seeking to drop the investigation of the Odessa tragedy. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Identified Redactions

The following are my (partly) repaired Yandex/Google translations of the 4 points Konstantinov makes in his September 8 article for Dumskaya. Note for anyone trying the same: it's a Russian-language site, here citing Ukrainian sources in Ukrainian, so you have to switch. [2] --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The second version shows a very different role in Odessa's events of the former Secretary of the NSDC Andriy Parubiy and ex-Governor Vladimir Nemirovsky. The text, which showed People's Deputy, they are referred to as (original language):

"However, written information on the issues discussed in the specified session and instructions provided by the results of Ukraine's NSDC Secretary repeated requests for temporary investigative commission did not provide. Outside the attention of the investigation remained involved in the events of nearly 500 people who were promoted by the President of the Odessa Regional State Administration Nemirovsky VL was brought to Odessa from Kiev square and placed at checkpoints. Community of independent journalists believe that these men were key players stripping campsite at Kulikovo field and set the House of Trade Unions.
The event has a common response among the public of the city, as further developments and the lack of information on matters that solved while in NSDC Secretary allows dissemination of information that this officer controlled the action of so-called "self-defense groups."

These passages have been deleted. Information about five hundred "maydanovtsev" now appears only in direct speech fugitive deputy head regional ATC Dmitri Fuchedzhi. About Parubiya piece was moved to the top, where there is a speech about the difficulties faced by the Commission in its investigation. It sounds as follows:

"In numerous meetings with representatives of the Interim Commission of Inquiry public c. Odessa focused on his arrival on the eve of May Day to the city. Odessa previous Secretary Parubiya AV and arrival after the tragic events 05/03/2014 to the city. Odessa Deputy Minister Interior-Chief of Staff CEBOTARU SI ( Чеботарь С.И ) creation by operations staff to stabilize the operational situation in the city. Odessa and Odessa region and taking over the role of leadership. According to members of the Interim Commission of Inquiry, these persons would clarify the situation regarding the events that took place from 2 to 4 May 2014 in the city. Odessa."

Clearly, the difference between the deleted paragraphs the ones that appear is colossal.

2. In the part where they talk about the famous meeting in the regional Prosecutor office - exactly at the time of deployment of the opposing sides - added the phrase "at the entrance to the office, where the meeting was held, it had a sign asking you to turn off mobile phones" (about this meeting, which was held by the Deputy Prosecutor General Nikolai Banchuk, first told Fusegi). In the original text it was only the following remark: "the direction of Banya M.V. present at the meeting to turn off cell phones were not provided".

3. From a piece of "according to the investigative authorities, the conflict ALLEGED ( НАЧЕБТО ) provoked by Pro-Russian parties, which were among the participants of the rally for unity with Russia and support the federalization of Ukraine", the word "like" ( начебто ), that was "supposedly" ( якобы ). One word, and the text is played quite differently!

4. From the paragraph, which originally looked like this: "After the events that took place in the shopping center "Athena" one of the leaders of "Euromaidan" Andrew Yusov on Preobrazhenskaya street organizes and encourages "Euromaidan" activists to move on Kulikovo field, where the representatives of Antimidaidam," he disappeared Yusov (it was replaced by "some leaders "Euromaidan") and the representatives of "Antimaidan".

Full Report Summary

Meetings: First the report explains the commission, lists signatories (to the prior draft anyway), and then outlines the meetings held. The first meeting was held on May 16, to get organized. Other meetings on May 21, 22, 23, 26 27 29, June 2, 4, 5, and 16 the committee met mainly with various security officials, mainly about the events in Odessa -May 21 met with "staff of the Odessa city management research Affairs of Ukraine in Odessa region," who told them "about the complex preparatory, preventive and investigative measures aimed at ensuring public order" on the day of the clashes and massacre, "as well as the relatively prompt action by law enforcement officers during these events." It seems some of their actions were relatively prompt, but it's the others that needed more scrutiny. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Verbal explanations" were provided at these meetings by some 32 "experts" - mainly anti-terrorism and national guard types. They did not seem to invite any survivors, family of victims, or representatives of their camp, for an inside view of "who killed you and how?" With these masses of people giving their opinions how to understand the videos of "they started it," chances are high they had little time to really cover what happened at the Trade Union hall anyway. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

June 24, they met with "a group of journalists and experts who are conducing and independent investigation into the events that took place May 2 in Odessa. July 9 and 24 they considered events in Mariupol (see Mariupol Massacre), hearing from "former Representative Battalion "Azov", a member of Mariupol City Council and others." On Sept. 2 fthey held a inal meeting, "which concluded its work and adopted the report of the Commission on the work done." --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to these meetings and of the meetings, the Chairman of the Interim investigation Commission A. I. Kisse "held two meetings with the Head of the Monitoring UN mission on human rights in Ukraine Mr. Armen Harutyunyan and meeting with representatives of the Special monitoring of the OSCE mission to Ukraine," where he "drew attention to the need for European experts independent examination of the dead bodies," which Harutyunyan has promised to facilitate - committee asked the Minister of Internal Affairs which asked the embassies of the US, Israel, Germany, and the UK. - it apparently never happened. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Findings:

  • Acknowledgment of illegality by pro-Kiev elements is vague but present: "On the Kulikovo field representatives "Euromaidan" started to burn the tents and to commit unlawful acts against activists "Antimaidan" who locked themselves in the House of trade unions." [1] Do they mean "had locked themselves in," prior to the acts, or ran in to escape the violence? Because the former is more true. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to the results of their review... the Commission directed in the main investigation Department of the Ministry of internal Affairs ... (to establish) new defendants in the event that may be involved in the organization of mass riots and the death of large numbers of citizens, in Odessa, as well as establishing the persons who have committed illegal acts." Names were agreed on, then removed (see #Identified Readactions.
  • "April 29, 2014, Odessa, chaired by the Secretary of the NSDC of Ukraine Parubiy A.V. held a meeting of the operational staff to ensure a co-ordinated measures to respond rapidly to challenges and threats to national security of Ukraine with participation of the Odessa regional state administration, management, security service (et al.)"
  • "Head of the Odessa city police Department Luzuko PS (Petr Lutsyuk) reported that on may 2, scheduled three events: the first set - a-side football, the second - on the Kulikovo field, where after 18.00 hours, it was planned to collect up to 200 people, and the third near the monument to Duke, where after 18.00 hours, it was planned to collect up to 200 people." --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Any applications in the prescribed manner for the conduct of the March "For United Ukraine" from its participants to the Odessa city Council has not received, permission to conduct the relevant shares were not provided. Thus, all shares that were held were unauthorized." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


  • The Odd Meeting:

"May 2, 2014 at approximately 12:00 hours. in the premises of the Prosecutor of the Odessa region Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Banchuk MV ( Банчука М.В ) conducts operational meeting on the theme: on "the state of work on combating separatism, public opposition and ensuring law and order in the Odessa Region" with the participation of the Odessa Regional State Administration, Regional Council, prosecution Odessa region, heads of law enforcement bodies of the Odessa region and their deputies, heads of military units stationed in Odessa region, and others. This meeting was held in coordination with the General Prosecutor of Ukraine." [1]

At the entrance to the Cabinet where he held meetings there was a notice with a request to turn off mobile phones.
The direction of Banchuk M.V. present at the meeting to turn off cell phones were not provided, as evidenced by the calls of the Chairman of the Odessa regional state administration with the Prime Minister of Ukraine, head of the security service of Ukraine in Odessa region with the Chairman of the security service of Ukraine, head of research Affairs of Ukraine in Odessa region.
Meaning, calls weren't actually prevented by this.
Head of main Department of internal Affairs of Ukraine in Odesa region Lutsyuk PS during the meeting asked Benchuca MV after his speech, along with his Deputy Fusegi A.I to leave the meeting in connection with the arrival of fans at a football match.
Lutsyuk later went to the stadium to manage personnel in order to ensure public order and Fuchedzhy DV in nearby buildings MIA of Ukraine in the Odessa area to monitor the situation around the building.
Meaning, perhaps, neither the top cop nor his deputy were absent from the scene? Fucheji's been seen - not sure what Lutsyuk looks like.
As it turned out later, the mobile phone Suzuka PS ( Луцюка П.С. ) called Dolzhenkov S.A. asking to provide information about the plan "Fortress" (plan for the conservation of areas of the state Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine in Odessa region) with the aim of seizing buildings and theft of firearms. Upon refusal, the latter decided to grab a Kalashnikov in the Odessa Institute of internal Affairs, where there were about 500 machines, which were guarded by 2 cadets.
Meaning? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Main Suspect" appears on Russian TV

The deputy head of police Fuchedzhy gave a rather long interview to Russian TV after Porky declared him the "main suspect". Video was uploaded to youtube on Sep 28. I came across a translation to (slightly broken) German. He says he's the fall guy and the real main perpetrator is the governour Nemirovsky, who he says is a protege of Yats and brought Parubiy to Odessa to do the planning and execution of getting rid of the anti-Maidan camp at the union building. He says he has written detailed descriptions of the events and sent it to the investigators. Seems like especially point one of the redactions is based on this testimony. He says he's not willing to testify in Ukraine under the current circumstances as he fears for his life. He was shot at and injured in the arm during the events and suspects it was deliberately and they were trying to kill him. (edit: I see you already discussed this over here. Was a bit out of the loop for the last couple of days. Well, here you have a transcript in broken German, for what it's worth.)--CE (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, I've been hoping to hear more. The first interview too, I'm not sure I ever got a good translation of. His story is interesting, ambiguous, with the "devil in the details" and we've been a short on those. I'll check this out - a 2-3 step process, but maybe after waiting to see what the news stories in text pass on about it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Football fans march was not authorized

Fuchedji claimed in the interview that football fans march was not authorized.

Rada report confirms that.

Начальник Одеського міського управління міліції доповідав Луцюку П.С., що на 2 травня заплановано три заходи: перший захід - футбол, другий - на Куликовому полі, де після 18.00 години планувався збір до 200 чоловік, третій - біля пам’ятника Дюку, де після 18.00 години планувався збір до 200 чоловік. Відповідно до цих заходів і було розписано місце перебування міліції.

Жодних заявок у встановленому порядку для проведення маршу «За єдину Україну» від його учасників до Одеської міської ради не надходило, дозволів на проведення відповідних акцій не надавалось. Таким чином, всі акції, які проводилися були несанкціоновані.

Chief of Odessa city militsia (=police) administration reported to P.S. Lutsiuk that 3 events were planned: 1. football 2. meeting at Kulikovo (normal pro-Russian opposition meeting place) of up to 200 people after 18.00 3. meeting of up to 200 people at the "duke" monument (normal Euromaidan/Right Sector meeting place). Militsia positioning was planned accordingly.

No request to Odessa city council according to specified procedures was made for conducting a march "For United Ukraine," and no permission was granted. Accordingly, all actions which took place were unauthorized. --Resup (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed that, in a worse translation. Why not bother regtistering such an important event? Well, if it's an off-the-books anti-terror (aka terrorist) operation, a spontaneous provoked riot meant to get out of control ... well, they still should have registered the part that was pre-planned and pre-announced. Because otherwise, it looks odd, like you're being all off-the-books. In wonder why they didn't. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
For authorized march they would need appropriate police presence, and likely they did not want that. There is lots of humor in town but I doubt there is are many lawyer jokes (if at all). --Resup (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Kalashnikovs seized

Нарада закінчилася приблизно о 14.30 год...

Як з’ясувалося в подальшому, на мобільний телефон Луцюка П.С. телефонував Долженков С.О. вимагаючи надати інформацію щодо плану «Фортеця» (план охорони приміщення ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) з метою захоплення будівлі та викрадення вогнепальної зброї. Отримавши відмову, останній вирішив захопити автомати Калашникова в Одеському інституті внутрішніх справ, де знаходилося біля 500 автоматів, які охороняло 2 курсанти.


"Meeting (long meeting Fuchedji had to attend) was over at 14.30"...

"As became clear afterwards, S.A. Dolzhenkov called P.S. Lutsiuk cell phone, demanding information on plan "Castle" (plan of guarding the building of Main Administration of Ministry of Internal Affairs, Odessa region) aimed at capturing the building and taking possession of firearms. Demand being rejected, (Dolzhenkon) decided to seize Kalashnikov guns at the Odessa Institute of Internal Affairs, where about 500 Kalashnikovs were kept, guarded by 2 cadets. " --Resup (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting story. They say there was no seizure though, and this second plan was also foiled when the guns there were re-located. Giogle trans of the part right after: "These machines are law enforcement officers seized and transported to the police Department, eliminating the possibility of seizing weapons." I had the impression this plotter was on the Maidan side, but now I'm not sure. Also, what kind of plot is this? "Hey, chief of police, tell me how to break into your armory. No? Oh I'm mad now. Gonna shoot you, if I can get into that armory..." Huh? --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed the following up text says that cops secured those weapons. And 500 guns was not needed in any case. This is still some curious detail likely indicating that few real weapons were seized (or used during transfer, than placed back in storage, etc).
It should be quite impossible to hide that there was a phone call, so it is admitted. But one can try to say that yes there was a call, but sort of nothing happened. I do not know who Dolzhenkov is; I am pretty sure it was him who is said to place a call. Whichever side he is, this was likely used to facilitate using weapons under cover. --Resup (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Mix-up above? I have "Suzuka PS called Dolzhenkov S.A.," and see that's the order but Suzuka must be Lustsyuk (Луцюка = L-U-??-K-extra a), So, it must just be a backwards order thing; your version makes more sense. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I see some reports listing Dolzhenkov on pro-Russian side; I do not know is it true; he can also be embedded there in advance; I do not know anything about him. He does not seem to be acting in the interests of pro-Russian side, that seems clear. --Resup (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hold that last thought. This gets interesting. It comes from the investigation report, but the info goes under clashes, red armband contingent. Most of the stuff above copied for there, stuff below cut for the Dolzhenkov section there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

May 2 Group

So, for those following the investigations, Ukraine's six, only two were not guranteed to be insider whitewashes: the Rada report, and the independent-seeming May 2 Group. This panel of civic leaders, journalists, experts was formed on May 12. It apparently included a mix of voices, coordinated by social worker Sergey Dibrov. A May 19 report has Dibrov explaining (it seems) it wasn't to replace official investigations but to do their own work since people shouldn't just trust what the ministries say. The group released little, perhaps due to a lack of agreement. They have an official website: http://2maygroup.blogspot.com/ (no analysis yet - they mention news articles, somewhat at least from "both sides.") --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One glimpse of the group's thinking can be had in a briefing held on or before August 20 at a place called "Odessa Crisis Media Center." By the Ukie-color logo, this is the group that runs the May 2-affiliated http://www.odcrisis.org/ website. This helps the public - for example, the family of massacred federalists - find truth and closure by running articles like one by two leaders of "Automaidana" ( Автомайдана ) speaking on "the struggle against separatism and pro-Russian sentiment in Odessa and the region," as well as moving on to wider anti-terrorist news.

Automaidan is an activist auto club (supportive ) of Euromaidan (and enjoying photographing themselves with Bandera artefacts, or similar). Approximate US analogy would be "Hell's Angels," or such bunch, investigating, e.g. in Ferguson, Missouri (while enjoying their media-positive environment) --Resup (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Never did say I like that comparison. Not sure how specifically racist the Angels are, but the point works. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Crisis" crew's August briefing with the May 2 set was described with photos in a Ukraian blog post here, translated to English for Voice of Ukraine here. This mentions the transliteration of the group's name Gruppa Vtorogo Maya, and its strict adherence to agreement on statements, and implicitly on things like the content of this briefing.

Three presenters are cited by name. One is a journalist, Leonid Stekel, who addresses some demands about dis-empowering the "militia" across Ukraine, an opinion that there should be something like the FBI in Ukraine, and nothing specific about May 2.

Vladimir Sarkisyan, an expert in toxicology and forensic medicine, said all official story stuff was true. "The death toll matches with the official data" and "The cause of death ascertained by official forensic experts is correct." There were no chemical agents, white phospohorous, chloroform, anything employed by either side. People died from natural fire cause only and no bodies were burnt after death. He notes that if everyone had said this from the start, there wouldn't be so much confusion now. Also, it should be noted he is a total expert and should be totally trusted.

Vladislav Balinskiy studied the video record and decided only the pro-Russian side used guns, recklessly provoked the attack on themselves, made illogical barricades with their subhuman intelligence, kept away all help with their ceaseless lashing-out even at firemen, and so on and so it was all their fault. Article closes: "“Gruppa Vtorogo Maya” is going to continue to investigate the tragedy in Odessa." It's not just a tragedy, of course, but a crisis, a provocation that was resisted! They'll get to the bottom of it. Right?

No, if the August briefing is any sign, this enterprise in fakery is not going to offer any remotely useful insights into what happened on May 2, only on how a sick Nazi regime manipulates its people. The Rada probe was the best hope among them, and of course it came out inherently fact-based and useful, but half-failed at signing time and then watered-down after that. Their report merits a look, but it'll be up to the outsiders, investigations #7 and up, to get a more realistic reading. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On the Crisis center, I actually didn't know or connect the overall Ukraine Crisis Media Center. Odessa's branch just turns the triangles into seagulls. No wonder it talks so much about ATO and so little about the May "crisis." Duh ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

May 2 Group coordinator Sergei Dibrov is not to be considered an impartial source on the events of May 2. Certainly if one of the "pro-Russian terrorists" defending inside had survibed and been put in charge of the "independent" investigation, would not fly. But when it goes the other way ... Consider one of the videos posted to Youtube by " Mr. Dibrov," of several totalling about 7 hours when Sergei is said to have taken 7 hours of footage (see here for overview. At 2:15 in this one, the filmer, who should be Sergei, stands up on something and announced something very loudly in Russian to the people attacking the Trade Union Hall. As helpfully translated and clarified by ACLOS member Resup (at the above link):

somebody yells: "samooborona !!! (self-defense !!!--call to selfdefence unit to pay attention). From the second station, a crowd is moving !!! 30-40 people !!!" Q: "second station?" A; "Yes, Food Academy"
... a crowd, potentially dangerous, but not identified, of some 30-40 people, is approaching them from a train station number 2, and he clarifies the one which is from the direction of college which prepares specialists for the food industry.

However that maps out or who it refers to, this is clearly someone involved in one side of the hostilities, privy to and sharing tactical information to the side setting a building ablaze. A week or so later, he's coordinating the investigation to double-check the official one which he says shouldn't be trusted ... until his group echoes it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure who yells this, it's kind of loud but not close to the video recording; my impression was it is not the same guy who is filming --Resup (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

With May 2 group, after looking into their publications very briefly, they seem to be kind of broadcasting the official line, not doing some penetrating observations. (And it may be dangerous to do anything else in the open in Odessa at this point in time) --Resup (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

May 2 Committee

This is a very different group from the group above, less formal but called a committee, and more in touch with the anti-Kiev stance, plenty willing to consider a Fascist massacre, and I think much closer to the reality that lays between the extremes but well towards this side.

--Caustic Logic (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is May 2 Committee AND (another) May 2 group. I am yet to learn about them, but they seem to be on opposite side of barricades --Resup (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That's almost the only thing I've already written about them, right above. :) --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Information Center

Информационный Центр http://info-center.od.ua/

It seems this is considered an opposition source, Kulikovo alternative supporter, and connected to others including people who survived the assault on the Trade Union Hall on May 2. I have no previous info on them, but Resup has just stumbled across them via news that their director Evgeny Anokhin ( Евгения Анохина ) was reportedly just arrested by the SBU branch in Odessa. It's suggested by supporters this was a baseless, illegal raid, with nothing found to support the charges, which never were stated. That is, please note, a good way to leave a case totally dropped after it makes the news - not a good way to lock up someone you really want to lock up. Why else would Ukraine's answer to the CIA want to arrest this guy and increase his profile as legit opposition? See investigation critique below... --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Dialog.ua adds on October 24 he was in fact sentenced (translated):

Primorsky district court of Odessa sentenced the editor prorocheskogo Internet-edition "InfoCenter" Eugene Anokhin, arrested on Wednesday, October 22, to two months in jail. He is suspected of committing a crime under Art. 283 part 3 of the criminal code of Ukraine - "aiding and abetting terrorist organizations". --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This accusation, under recently introduced criminal code article, is said to be based on email or chat exchanges with Anton Davidchenko (found on seized computer), which contained a list of arrested Kulikovo activists, considred for POW exchange with Novorossia (POW exchange is under OSCE monitoring; and since Novorossia is colloquially semi-recognized under 'special rule' and Minsk agreements, that seem to imply that OSCE is a terrorist organisation?). List of arrested activists indeed does not seem available, I was just wondering where to find it, actually. Other points raised by info-center.od.ua : rights not explained ("Miranda" violation), no witnesses during search (I guess it is standard in ex-USSR, elsewhere, I guess, it is video recorded?) , arrest warrant is produced after the fact. He was kept under SBU arrest for over 24 hours without charges explained, and attorney assistance was not available).
If that would happen in the West, it will become a major legal issue and charges may have to be dropped on procedural grounds even if an actual crime was committed. --Resup (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the crime (his terrorist group had the power to free people in exchange for Kiev soldiers?) But I just woke up. Miranda rights (to remain silent) are for the U.S., but Wikipedia says other countries have equivalents, including Ukraine. So, understood, but out of curiosity ... Criminal Process Code of Ukraine, Section 2 of Article 21: "Inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and court, before the first examination of the suspect, accused, and defendant, are required to advise them of the right to have a defense counsel " Nothing about remaining silent, per se, but it seems another rules cover "give testimonies or refuse testifying and answering questions." Also sec. 4, art. 29 says suspects must be "informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention." #1 that was all to keep Yanukovych in line, not needed anymore as far as Washington et al. are concerned - is now like Turkey or Saudi Arabia, Libya, the freed parts of Syria, anything goes, and hopefully the whole world can be that way soon. #2 the case might be tossed, but not yet I guess. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No need for a crime, SBU can arrest random people to keep all those not yet arrested afraid, --and demonstrate to the regime importance to keep themselves well-funded in the process. For example, there was a block-post incident near Odessa, and a tire was damaged; so anybody can now arrested for doing that; or similar.

But in this particular case, it's different. I do not think anybody really knows all the names of those arrested in relation to May 2 (except maybe OHCHR, but they do not publish it). Possession of such list is therefore a grave "threat to Ukraine security:" having such list, one can demonstrate that nobody from the Right Sector was arrested, for example. So far, it is quietly alleged by pro-Kulikovo that only themselves are arrested for burning themselves up, but hard evidence for such assertion is not made public (as far as I can tell). --Resup (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So they just got a leaked copy then. It shouldn't be all that secret, seems to me. It would show the arrestees are mainly or all Anti-Maidan (depending on Mykola's true status, seems the very few on the other side ever arrested were based on hard evidence, not guesses - they were forced to act or appear obviously complicit - and they were all released one way or another, quietly and one at a time. For the anti side, there was one angering mass-release of survivors, after a heart-warming mass arrest of survivors, but many re-arrests and new arrests since then, based on as little evidence as they like. All public statements about who the MoI or SBU are after are pretty clear it's only the Anti-Maidan side. It's not something they're trying to hide - they broadcast it so everyone on that side changes their beliefs, runs away and stays away, or gets locked up, or murdered/disappeared. They might even embrace finally revealing such a list, after this little controversy. They admit they went too far, this info can be public, this opposition investigation of Anokhin's might have some merit to it after all, etc... --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Info Center Investigation

This group directed by Evgeny Anokhin produces news articles based on its sources and research at its website: http://info-center.od.ua/. A first look quickly raises questions about their methodology, at least. Consider their top three recent stories (from Russian, auto-translated), tending to blame murky forces on the "pro-Russian" side of things, and not even mention the obvious assailants. Title-link, teaser, my notes:

Is this unease just a misunderstanding? Did the authorities hack the site at the same time as the arrest and plant this stuff? Because I don't like how it reads one bit. Let's check the details in the middle link. It says "the activists, who are investigating the tragedy may 2," can now shed light on a pre-planned clearing of the tent camp by authorities and Maidan people - which sounds likely to start -and that in fact this plot was agreed also with some "Anti-Maidan" leaders - which sounds dubious (I didn't read on to see just who and how). "However, the fact that it all ended so bloody, no one could imagine." Doubly dubious for anyone who's taken a serious look. The Anti-Maidan parties certainly would not agree to this if they could foresee, but the other side ... The intent is increasingly clear as we look - to cause death and sow terror, in a way that could be called accidental, and shut down Odessa's serious opposition. Yes, they foresaw it. But these activists want you to think, as Kiev does, that the fire and massacre (and hunting-down of survivors?) was all accidental.

Originally, the tear-down was to be at night after the football match, by enraged fans (enraged by what provocation, probably never explained), and police would help manage it, "to detain and isolate Anti-Maidan activists, avoiding excessive use of force." If it happened without victims or terror, as planned, these folks thought that would have been in "the interests of all parties."

By 'parties' he likely means big-shots, power players: regional administration (under pressure from Kiev) , tent city leaders (under pressure from administration, and reportedly offered money to move elsewhere), and possibly businessmen pursuing their commercial interests (whatever those may be)--Resup (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Except in vilifying one narrow group/guy (already arrested) they claim some Anti-Maidan folks (sounds almost like most of them? the peaceful ones?) were also party to this plan to burn the camp. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the opposition would not have been killed, hospitalized, arrested, fled or hiding, or awaiting one of those quietly ... so they might have continued and, to hear the massacre apologists speak, would surely have split Odessa away behind Donbass and greatly weakened Kiev's hand in the opening war. That's an interest, right? NOT SERVED, folks, in this concocted narrative. It will be in the real one. It would take more than burnt tents, obviously. There's something wrong with that thinking coming from an opposition source, or from anyone wanting to be taken seriously.

The break-down in the supposedly harmonious scheme, of course, was not on the Euro side. It was "Captain Cocoa" Dolzhenkov, pro-Russia extremist, who disagreed with the other Kulikovo activists. He "thwarted" the peaceful plan, and with a few friends "provoked riots in the Central part of the city" way too early - which is the only mentioned cause of "the bloodshed that lasted for three hours," and some important kind of "confusion," then "shooting, assault and arson of the House of trade Unions, which were about four hundred people, 42 of whom died."

This is how it appears to authors, who are likely in Kulikovo camp. They are basically saying, it was not us who provoked, at most one of us did it, and actually, "Captain Cocoa" is NOT us (which sounds true)--Resup (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a thought ... I'll re-examine that way. It's not a bad effort if so, but goes to show how impossible it is to make this make sense. The cowed opposition can be reduced to blaming thei own extremist fringe (Dolzhenkov does seem to be criminally liable for provoking violence, just like they say, but ... ahem. Yeah, not the whole story folks), and flat ignoring who it was that poured into the hall with clubs, torched rooms, executed, dragged people around and re-torched, probably raped, poison-gassed ... I hope everyone can stay safe, they might still convince most people the problem there was small and already solved, and even opposition sources agree who "orchestrated" the "massacre." But broken minds investigations like that are not very useful, and in fact serve as disinformation by proxy. Would be a very sad situation. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It goes on for some length with an explanation, including several paragraphs on violence in Odessa in the early 20th century and how locals there never liked violence. Awesome background, but I don't think any of it will convince me they're justified in this perversion of the record to absolve all the truly criminal parties and blame Capt. Cocoa for everything. Three for three, I'm not trusting this information / disinformation center. And that casts a shadow over the arrest of its founder they didn't even try to justify, almost exactly as he released / directed release of (?) these amazing findings. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This info was likely sitting there for ages, just nobody cared. There is basically no rule of law, Right Sector or shadowy services do not care about some Miranda rights (and may not even know the concept). So most likely is that those guys are raising human rights issues because they are powerless and nobody cares. They hope that Westerners care about human rights. Well, yes (sometimes). It is not unthinkable that in more sophisticated setting shadowy service arrest somebody to spread a message. But at this level of lawlessness this is probably too far fetched. If somebody opens his mouth, he may be beaten or worse. All that legal -shmegal stuff does not fly over there---unless it is politically correct legal stuff of course. It is known from UN report that SBU investigation is not cooperative; it is in many news that SBU makes arrests. --Resup (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Emphasis: I did ask "Did the authorities hack the site at the same time as the arrest and plant this stuff?" Does the real guy/group talk and think like this historically, or just now all of a sudden? They could be real and credible as all hell and just subjected to a detailed campaign I'd be playing right into with the stuff above. I'd feel bad about that, so a pause to reflect - I typed too much and researched too little, again. Gnite. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If something (newspaper, activist group, etc) is based in the city of Odessa, it will be dangerous to express openly views not approved by the State (or so it strongly appears). To take on issues spot-on, they may need to be located not in pro-Kiev Ukraine (many places where that can be) --Resup (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Either way, planted, cowed, knowing agent, other ... I stand by my assessment so far. It deserves more careful look, and I might do that. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Instinct says something really wrong with this "investigation." --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ACLOS Investigation

Where Now?

Recently there has been a lot of work poured into the complexities of this bizarre incident, its effects, context, aftermath ... the victims, perpetrators, investigators, decisions made, timeline... Sometimes the same info gets worked out twice on different pages, or twice each on two pages ... all trying to stay linked and coherent ... and some are wondering what we should be trying to achieve. Tthe recent progress invites more ambitious plans, but can leave our heads spinning ... Good time for a head-check and a place to discuss the broader mission of all this overwhelming detail about just one event in this catastrophe unleashed on Ukraine.

For my part, I don't have an exact answer. We should aim for something good, which it already is. But where next? Guidance, a good map ... In general, the more relevant pieces you have, especially visually verified ones, the more sense you can make of a shadowy situation. Usually, I just keep digging, following all kinds of leads that seem worthwhile - each case has different ones. There's some limit to what can be found openly (our arena, almost entirely). But ideally, when we get serious, we try to absorb the entire available public record, consider it all together and sometimes write an exhaustive report . (this isn't ACLOS "we" so much as the similar and overlapping Citizen's Investigation Into War Crimes in Libya we). The best end result, fairly rare, is the PDF report - like with the Libyan shed massacre (153 pages!) and hospital massacre at the same time, or the Syrian Houla massacre (which also got a second and better report).

Odessa ... not by the very soon 6-month mark at least, but this case would make a good report #5 for the CIWCL. Maybe not as saturation-coverage as that first Libya report, sheesh, but simply two degrees better than any other report should be achievable, and makes it seem worthwhile, We're far enough along almost to start considering the best approach, what to check on and develop further, emphasize, Besides what I know and have done before, there are other options for where to take this, how to develop and present it. Maybe do some research/networking for a call to action element, write your Senator kind of thing ... this case invites and requires lively anti-Fascist defiance and a growing global push to support truth and righteous resistance, or at least the righteous part, by covering the truth part.

I think some sort of agreement or hype in this linkable, space before Nov. 2, followed by some pimping of links to here where we work в первую очередь на английском языке, would be a good start.I can pimp a bit. Others feel free. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My biggest question (at this time) is whether there is any hope that there is an internationally-lead investigation. Ukraine-led investigations appear to be all stuck, and there is little evidence of momentum to actually investigate. It is heading towards outcome where May 2 group would look like a brave dissenting opinion. The problem with keeping hiding the truth is that it dramatically changed Odessa, sending independent honest people back to partisan catacombs. in a way. If there is real serious investigation, than what we do can be of help where to look and what questions deserve attention. If no real investigation is happening, it will not really be possible to come to final definite conclusion based on just internet evidence, and so it will not really change much. Right sector is not going to get enlightened by reading. It is still good to have independent informal inquiry, and it is possible it will encourage something more formal eventually (the question is, on what time scale? -- If it something for the next generation to sort, like 25 years scale or more, it may be all very different, so different that we have little to contribute).

(I also note that Russian officials recently talk a lot about anti-fascism; but not clear how this line will work in practice. This is not the same as Nazi Germany; and as of now, different sort of people on top, more 'oligarchism' than 'nazism'; and self-contradictory as such, ---both 'independent' (Ukraine nationalism) and 'European' (Brussel bureaucrat-ism) ). Just discontinuing gas supply, as a hypothetical option, will only make some people cold, but not resolve the mess at all. So where is this all heading?--No clue. --Resup (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why a Syria wiki covering Ukraine? It's kind of about branding/traffic flow, and maybe lack of foresight ... I start things, and like too specify (and then own) a corner. And so we (Petri and me and sort of others, the CIWCL) are the masters of the dated name but oh well, as I just noted at my old Libya war blog) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lavrov. On top of saying that Russia supports Minsk agreements; will recognize results of both elections (Kiev and Novorossia). He shares his opinion that reconciliation requires that those who committed crimes are punished. (Or a time of several generations scale, I would say, not a good option. As somebody said, if Ukraine is a bridge between East and West, that's good. If it is a 'buffer' (or exclusion) zone, bad). Lavrov gives a lot of factual information about possible investigations. Basically, there seem to be no good options: Russian investigation is limited by affected interests of Russia, and there is little that will stand in court. There appears to be no international mechanism readily available, short of Ukraine explicitly asking for it.

  • International Criminal Court in The Hague. Ukraine is not a party to the Statute of the full. So the Court cannot initiate the investigation by its own initiative. Ukraine can ask for it,

and Ukraine did ask, in the case of Maidan, but not in the case of Odessa, or Mariupol (there was an event where local police HQ came under attack, with a number of people killed, by RS), or other events

  • Council of Europe. There was some movement (Council offered help, Ukraine seemed to agree). But than, according to Lavrov, insisted on some conditions which made progress unlikely. (From what I can see, checking website, there is some advisory committee for Ukraine formed, but there is no sign of progress, and appears to be not much in terms of activity, some visits to Kiev/couple of meetings, no outcome or something like that.
  • Eurasian Union/CIS. Ukraine is not a full member, and there are no criminal matters agreements anyway, so this seem to be totally out.
  • European Human Rights Court. Available mechanism for individuals (but it requires a lot of courage-based on current situation, and also time, persistence, and resources, so I do not think much will happen in practice; maybe a couple of cases, if at all, with little broader effect. --Resup (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

European Association Agreement. I have not read it (over 1000 pages)? Not clear but not too hopeful it will make a difference. Presumably, still has to go via one of practically available mechanisms above? (Syria has a cooperation agreement, and signed an association agreement with EU--I don't know what good any of that did to Syria, or how this is different from Ukraine. Maybe some other 1000 pages in case of Syria, -do not really know)--Resup (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Other Informal Investigations

  • May 2 Committee (should NOT be confuses with May 2 group) published a list of alleged detachment commanders, who reported to 'sotnik' 'Mikola' and received a payment towards their work. Said to be based on information provided by Odessa citizen, but no details provided. --Resup (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 ЗВІТ Тимчасової слідчої комісії Верховної Ради України з питань розслідування фактів загибелі громадян у містах Одесі, Маріуполі, а також в інших містах Донецької та Луганської областей України (REPORT (of the) Temporary investigative Commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the investigation into the death of citizens in the cities of Odessa, Mariupol, and also in other cities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine) Official Version, dated September 5, released September 8, 2014. Direct .RTF download link: Додаток (1) 05.09.2014 As cited here, translated with Google or Yandex translate, with improvements.
  2. Отчет парламентской комиссии по событиям 2 мая «подправили» после подписания его нардепами (Report of the Parliamentary Commission on the events of May 2 "tweaked" after signing his People's Deputy) By Oleg Konstantinov, Dumskaya.net, 8 September, 2014 21:07