March 20, 2023
Last edits March 24 - some updates re:Dmytriv in progress
Intro to Sniper Questions
Ukraine became such a great democracy to defend from Russia only in early 2014, after a "Revolution of Dignity." The pinnacle of this was when the previous government of Viktor Yanukovych was removed over accusations of mass murder. His security forces allegedly fired on the people around the central Maidan square in several episodes, killing over 100 protesters - the "Heavenly Hundred" - and a reported 18 police officers. The bulk of the protesters were killed the morning of February 20, reportedly by police snipers on the ground, who were seen firing their weapons. But there were widespread reports of mysterious shooters playing a part, from the surrounding buildings that had come under control of the protesters and organized street thugs and their allies like Svoboda, Right Sector, and assorted, murkier foreign agents.
This massacre was an immediate reason early elections were called as President Yanukovych was denounced, sanctioned, and swiftly chased from the country - reportedly after assassination attempts. It's part of why his party of Regions had its headquarters torched on Feb. 20, by an armed mob (who reportedly beat an IT worker there to death). It's part of why the Regions party was soon illegalized, along with the Communist party, and a slew of opposition parties since. It allowed a bold new program in Ukraine, dedicated to fighting "Russian domination" and "corruption," while embracing "Democratic, European values" and striving towards "Euro-Atlantic integration." As a guiding spirit, they chose anti-Russian national hero and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
That snipers episode was far from the only factor in this, but it was at the time crucial in shaping opinions, especially abroad, to favor this transition. It's a big part of why separatists in Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, and elsewhere were seen either as a Russian hoax or as "terrorists" with no right to reject thew new program, It's a big part of why Ukraine's new government was blessed and armed to wage civil war on the separatists, and why Russia wasn't allowed to intervene to defend them. It's part of why Ukraine is now worth risking global nuclear war over.
And this geopolitically useful outcome is why we're led to turn a blind eye to the snipers massacre underpinning it, to unquestioningly accept the new government's creation myth.
But questions were raised at the time, from many quarters, and many questions have been answered since. Professor Ivan Katchanovski, a renowned scholar of Ukrainian affairs, is one who has followed closely. A political scientist at the University of Ottawa, Prof. Katchanovski "had marshaled overwhelming evidence to conclude Maidan protesters were killed by pro-coup snipers," as The Grayzone recently noted. This work was encapsulated in "a peer-reviewed paper initially approved and praised by a prestigious academic journal" until it was "suddenly rescinded without explanation," likely under political pressure.
That seems to be an updated, 2022 version of this 2021 report: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356691143_The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation/link/61a90e3f29948f41dbbc300f/download For general reference, see that report and these 2 useful videos: Video Appendix H - How Maidan Protesters Were Shot from Maidan-Controlled Buildings (2020) - The "Snipers' Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine (2021) - YouTube. From the latter video:
.png)
My focus here is on a bit of work from a few years back, but which I first learned of recently in that report:
A New York architecture company working with a team of Ukrainian “volunteers” did a 3D model reconstruction of the killings of three Maidan protesters on an order of Maidan victims lawyers for the Maidan massacre trial.53 This SITU model was cited by these lawyers and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine under Poroshenko as definite evidence that the Maidan protesters were massacred by the Berkut police and that snipers did not massacre the protesters.
The project in question was by SITU, and still viewable at: http://maidan.situplatform.com/
An explanatory article from 2018 gives collaborators: Ukrainian legal team including attorneys Pavel Dykan and Alexandra Iatsenko with the Advocacy Advisory Panel, Center for Human Rights Science (CHRS) at Carnegie Mellon University, Jus Talionis Reconstruction Lab. "This project is part of SITU’s Spatial Practice as Evidence and Advocacy (SPEA) project, which seeks to utilize spatial analysis and visualization in the service of human rights fact-finding and reporting. ... The interactive platform and co-developed tool for the analysis of citizen video will have significant impact on court proceedings. It will mark the first time that visual evidence and analysis of its kind will be presented in Ukrainian courts."
Finally: "The work of SPEA is funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Oak Foundation and the Open Society Foundations." No surprise there.
And see who else loves this project: Who Killed the Kiev Protesters? A 3-D Model Holds the Clues - The New York Times (nytimes.com) June 3, 2018. The Times article poses the "claims of grief-stricken activists" - that their fellows were killed by Berkut police - against "denials from Yanukovych" and "Pro-Russia sources." The latter sources tied the snipers to "a U.S.-backed plot" for regime change in "a “false flag” operation carried out by snipers associated with the protesters, or mercenaries from the country of Georgia, who were said to have shot down from nearby buildings. To this day, the story continues to circulate on Kremlin-funded media like Sputnik and RT." And to this day, the claim continues to be reflected in the direct, physical evidence, as related by Professor Katchanovski, for one. From there, it's paywalled for me. But apparently, this scientific modeling proved the Russians totally wrong. (more sources below)
I appreciate the hard work, by SITU and its partners, that went into cataloguing the videos and modeling the area, parsing the medical reports and putting it all together. But this doesn't give them the right to distort the evidence like they do, modeling it wrong, over and over, to the same politically useful effect.
Prof. Katchanovski authored a Critical response: The Buried Maidan Massacre and Its Misrepresentation by the West (consortiumnews.com) (April 22, 2019) - cited below. He also revisited the issue in the 2021 report:
However, the wound locations of the three killed Maidan protesters in the 3D model do not match the wound locations in the forensic medical examinations of the bodies and clothes and locations of appearing bullet holes in shields and a helmet of these protesters right after they were shot.
...[example, cited below]
42 The locations and directions of the wounds of these three protesters in forensic medical examinations and matching bullet holes that appeared in the shields of two of them and a helmet another along with their positions at the times of their killings point to their shooting from the top part of the Bank Arkada in the Maidan-controlled area. Several Maidan protesters and medics pointed to snipers there shortly before and after these three protesters were killed. (Video Appendix H).
Other shootings have always seemed to come from the Hotel Ukraine, or the October Palace, or a few other buildings, as each came under control of militant "protesters" and the associated "EuroMaidan Self-Defense units." I called Arcade Bank early on based just on video analysis (video) and slim reports (see map at bottom of this article). But I barely followed after 2014 and never saw that it was confirmed by much evidence.
"These three protesters," were probably shot "from the top part of the Bank Arkada in the Maidan-controlled area." By my own review of the available evidence, I'd say one of the 3 probably was shot from Arcade Bank. Another could well be, and the other is possible, but both of these others fit best with shots from one or another of a few building ahead that, as far as I know, no one has discussed.
Why These Three Victims?
These three cases were selected, perhaps, because the "activists" thought these were the best chances at circumventing the Maidan snipers problem. Shooters from Hotel Ukraine and October Palace were well-known issues, while other suspect buildings were less known. These three are among those shot from other locations, so the researchers might have taken that as adequate to implicate Berkut snipers, on the ground at the police barricade - their "Area of Interest."
There's no explanation I found, aside from the video Experiments at the Intersection of Art, Law and Innovation, where SITU partner Brad Samuels says "There's really good video footage of those three deaths." (43:23) There's also good video of other deaths, but they didn't chose any others.
From my own small files, 6 shootings, with limited visual detail, so provisional findings of gunfire seemingly from Ukraine Hotel and Arcade Bank just up the street. In one video study (also linked above), we see 2 people behind a low wall shielding them from the police barricade but exposing them to the hotel and to Arcade bank. They're shot, from which of the directions is unclear. Then another rises and starts to run towards the hotel. He has his body turned right to face the street, shield up on his right/back side against the police line. He's shot, it seems, from above and behind, knocking him down and towards the curb. I could be wrong about a visible exit from his chest, but even then, these details seems to line up very well with a newly-opened upper-floor window at Arcade Bank.
Another example from my own small collection: a young man is shielded from police by his shield and a tree he sits against, but he faces the Hotel Ukraine. He looks up, seems to see something at the hotel, and starts to rise just as two shots are fired at him - at least one hits his body and at least one hits his shield, creating a puff of smoke and denting the shield out so it shines a new reflection of sunlight (from the southeast) on the tree. That's clear fire from the hotel, probably upper floors.
And a third example on YouTube: a protester crosses to aid another who was shot, shield up over his head, protecting against the hotel side. That was wise, but showed mistrust of the hotel people. He's shot as soon as he turns left so as to be briefly unshielded, then he topples away from the hotel. Another just a meter away, crouching with back exposed to the hotel, is then shot, but tips back towards the hotel. Others, including a man with a rifle, have their backs to the hotel the whole time and are never shot.
Beyond those, just one more I stumbled across the other day: Euromaidan - Mass murder of protesters from sniper fire in Kiev Ukraine - YouTube. At 0:30, another victim is shot near Arcade Bank, tips over away from it, likely shot from it. More shootings are shown, but they didn't seem as clear, and I ran out of time. Here are all 7 mapped on Situ's handy model to show what it all means in 3D. (Some placements are inexact.)
b.png)
Here's a basic idea topographical view, to show why even with the slope, elevated shooting requires buildings. If it comes from around the police barricades but seems elevated, it probably came from another building that way. not from the police at their ground-level positions.
That's just seven shootings to Situ's three claiming to prove the opposite. I'm open to mixed indications, where the Berkut did shoot some of the protesters. But even with theses cases, it's not very mixed. I'll examine these three now and show that makes ten instances of fatal shooting that apparently came from protester-controlled buildings - including these select cases for the opposite. There are others such that, as I gather, they might all be shot by these mystery snipers and not the blamed Berkut. And if these three examples are the best it gets, alongside the worse cases, that really cements the problem professor Katchanovski has been studying.
The victims in the three cases below were all killed in the same basic area as those 7. SITU's page has a cases section: http://maidan.situplatform.com/report/23#, where each is mapped, with video explanation, archived videos, attached reports from The Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine, describing the relevant injuries (cited below as "medical report"), and a report from Knox and Associates, LLC, signed by Michael A. Knox, Board Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist - to determine the approximate distance and direction from which the shots were fired, and to add other notes (cited below as "Knox").
I go through a lot of details that require explanation, Feel free to skim through overly-detailed parts, noting the bolded bits. But if you see a point you want explained, you can go back and check the explanation. It's not so mind-numbing to read once you're motivated. The first case requires an extra-detailed review compared to the other two. Skim-reading may be in order there.
1) Igor F. Dmytriv
Situ overview: Igor F. Dmytriv was fatally shot at 09:21:59 on February 20, 2014. In two videos capturing the moment of his shooting, Dmytriv can be observed crouching with a shield in a grouping of three other protesters on Instytutska Street. At the time of the fatal gunshot, Dmytriv was oriented southeast with his torso facing Barricade 1 and Barricade 2. Two videos documenting law enforcement officer locations leading up to, during, and after 09:21:59 in the vicinity of Dmytriv are included in the collection of relevant videos. Spatial analysis of bullet trajectory and gunshot audio latency places the shooter causing Dmytriv’s fatal wound within the Area of Interest.
Injuries, Medical report: 4 wounds total, starting with entry and exit wounds to his upper right arm: wound № 1 is "at the front external surface and at the edge of the middle and the lower third, approximately at the height of 164 cm from pelma [soles of the feet] and approximately 24 cm down from the right shoulder joint." wound № 2 "is positioned at the right hand (shoulder level) at the front surface and in the middle third, 169 cm up from pelma and approximately 19,5 cm down from the shoulder joint." But these are hard to consider and we'll focus on the torso injuries.
Entry: "A wound (wound № 3) is positioned at the chest at the right side surface and at the front inguinal line, 163,5 cm up from pelma and 15 cm to the right from the median line. ...The wound size is approximately 2x1 cm. ... at the right side surface of the chest (and 163,5 cm from pelma) ... "on the front inguinal line," or "between front and middle inguinal lines." I can't place different inguinal lines clearly. One (the front?) relates to the groin, where the line may extend up the outer edge of abdominal muscles, and the "middle" one may run along the outer hip, so between them is at the curve between the front and the side of his chest. Either way, we have 15cm right of center, which is pretty much on the right side, on a standard torso about 30cm wide.
Exit: "A wound (wound № 4) is positioned at the abdominal space on the left side surface and to the back from the left middle inguinal line, 143 cm up from pelma and 23,5 cm to the left from omphalos (naval or middle). ... The wound size is approximately 0,3-0,4x1,5 cm. ... at the left side abdominal surface (a little to the back from the relative inguinal line and 143 cm from pelma)." Unless Dmytriv is much fatter than he looks, 23.5 cm left of the naval must be circumferential measure, around to the side and then a bit to the back - the whole torso is usually about 30cm wide or less.
Canal: "The wound canal begins from the wound, goes from the right to the left, from the top to the bottom, a little from the front to the back and ends at the wound № 4. The wound № 4 is positioned ... The wound canal sized approximately 33 cm between the wound № 3 and the wound № 4" ... An irregular oval injury ... is positioned on the right hemidiaphragm at the muscular part at the spine (lumbar part) level 155 cm up from pelma on the side of right peritoneal cavity. The wound canal also includes "the middle part of the right lung at the side surface" and it passes through the left kidney.
Knox: "Dmytriv suffered a single-bullet compound gunshot wound with the bullet, which perforated the right arm and the torso, following a right-to-left, front-to-back, downward trajectory across the body relative to the anatomic position." That's just a nice summary.
Injuries, mapped vs. modeled
Katchanovski, 2021 report cited this example in detail
"For instance, according to forensic medical examination, Ihor Dmytriv was shot in the “right side surface” and the “left side surface” of the torso “from the right to the left, from the top to the bottom, and a little from the front to the back” with the entry wound 20.5cm higher than the exit wound. A Maidan victims’ lawyer visually demonstrated at the trial that these wounds locations of were in the right and left sides. In the video of their examination of Dmytriv right after his shooting, Maidan medics also show such locations of his wounds with no wounds visible in the front area, contrary to the 3D model. However, in the 3D model, his wounds were moved to the front and the back and made nearly horizontal in order to fit them to the Berkut positions on the ground.54 (See Video Appendix H)."
"Maidan medics also show such locations of his wounds with no wounds visible in the front area, contrary to the 3D model."
All told, I'm not sure how much SITU fudged the diagonal track (front-back vs. side-to-side). To exit somewhat from his back, seems it had to enter a bit on the front, and the track seems roughly "corner" to "corner" either way. As I'll show, there's also an issue with how his body was modeled in the scene that helps bring the blame to the Berkut. What's even more interesting, as Katchanovski also noted, is how the line of fire was "made nearly horizontal," or at least made to appear that way.
First, some given numbers don't add up. The victim is given as 182 cm tall, so an entry wound 163.5cm is at jaw level, not anywhere on his torso, and 143 is at shoulder level, not abdomen. The same numbers appear in the Ukrainian original, so it's not a typo. I don't know what can explain this discrepancy, but as I'll show, it corrects well to go by specific anatomical points referenced, which leads us to shift the wounds, and the suggested descent between them, down about 33cm.
A good fit for all found with the Pythagorean theorem: A 33 cm wound canal would run 20.5 cm vertically and about 26 cm horizontally through the body - my quick estimate suggest about 26-28cm to cross an average-sized body diagonally. So I suppose these numbers do add up, and only the height of wounds was given differently.
Correcting entry wound level: taking a right arm wound 24 cm down from the shoulder and also 163.5 cm up makes sense only for a giant. But chest wound № 3 is given at the same level (164 cm) which also makes no sense. So maybe it's also about 24cm below the shoulder? That gives an entry almost where Situ shows it (blue dot in my image), but his arm was raised so that its wound would measure a bit lower than the corresponding torso injury. That happens to fit with the described decent and internal injuries. With the entry wound around 133cm up, at the 5th or 6th rib, it would then damage the right middle lung, the diaphragm (magenta curve) just right of the spinal area, and the left kidney (magenta oval).
d.png)
I attempted to quantify the bullet track shown In SITU's modeling, estimating the wound locations on an upright body. I may have placed them a bit too low or too level, but I get about 13 cm shown descent vs. 20.5 in the medical report. It could be greater than 13cm, but it's certainly leveled some compared to the medical report.
That difference seems fairly mild, but the victim also seems modeled with a slightly different rotation of head and torso than seen in reality, distorting the suggested trajectory. The video shows Dmytriv's back and right side almost equally, with the left arm just barely visible, while the model shows back side almost totally, with left arm fully visible. His right shoulder also seems modeled lower, pointing almost straight up the sidewalk, in an angled slouch that leans into the bullet,
All this would makes the different overall rotation less visually obvious, and would help minimize the "downward angle" as more explained by a crouching posture than it actually was. All differences appear mild and hard to quantify, but here I trace outline, apparent median of torso and head, and shoulder position.
b.png)
The real angle of fire should be a bit more towards the street from the right, not from up the street or at all from the left side. After the shot, Dmytriv tumbles backwards and left, towards the street, probably from the velocity of the gunshot from ahead and to the right.
The angles here reflect a crouched position, not standing, so some half of this "upward" angle is an illusion, and some of the rightward angle as well. But the rest is no illusion, and all together, it describes a shooter a bit ahead, well to the right, and well elevated. In contrast, SITU's erred modeling produced a shooter at ground level (barely elevated by topography), just slightly to the right but well ahead, on a line crossing both "Militsiya" barricades, with barricade 1 seemingly favored.
Knox: "As modeled, the trajectory matches the position of Dmytriv’s body as depicted in Videos #1 and #2." But "as modeled" is not how it was. The bullet track was leveled in his body and perhaps shifted to the front-back, then his body slouched down on the right side, and turned to the left. No single aspect was done terribly wrong, but the small effects add up to a rather incorrect result.
Shield and Body Position:
(revised 3/24): This took some slower re-analysis. To start, Dmytiv was facing less up the street to the southeast than I initially though. An important BBC News video of his shooting from behind at ground level was shot from the sidewalk alongside the hotel (dark blue line in graphics below), not the main sidewalk (about at the green line). From this view, Dmytriv lines up with the distant sign (yellow). It also aligns with the peak of a distant building I think is at 16 Instytutska, although the view here is oddly magnified, and these buildings are obviously downhill from the protesters.
.png)
His shield seems to face roughly ahead on that line - the little forshortening reflects a few degrees to the left - while his body is rotated to face about 2/3 ahead on this line, and about 1/3 or to the left. That's about 30°, perhaps a bit more (30-35°) left of straight ahead on the BLUE line. Relative to the main sidewalk and street here, he's facing around 45-50° to the left of ahead, but his shield is held something like 25-30° to his right. This is consistent with the other view from above, where his shield is not visible (so it doesn't confirm this point either).
This right-shielding would require a certain position with right hand closer, arm less extended, and likely shoulder back a bit (sketched below, crudely but to scale). The real angle is probably less than the 30° shown here, for a more forward-shielded posture, but somewhat like this. (a graphic that does too much at once, but oh well)
.png)
b.png)
b.png)
Knox: the distance from the firearm to the camera/microphone was in the range of 80m to 219m, "consistent with the shots having been fired from somewhere near Barricade #1." But the shield damage and bodily injuries are not consistent with that.
In his approximate actual position, a shot from the right does not clearly point to the barricade. Depending on the bullet tracks sketched above, it came roughly on one of the red, green, or lime lines, or a similar angle added here in yellow to include Bank Arkada as a possibility. The other lines suggest one of the buildings ahead, with differing elevation-to-distance ratios. The best fit is probably between green and lime, which is occupied by one building of some height, and the low, open patio of another. I know nothing about the status of these buildings, but they're indicated in the other two cases as well, and we'll come back to them more at the end. SITU's line to the barricade is ruled out for being well too far to the left, and because the Berkut at the barricade had no jet packs to hover above the place and provide that downward angle of fire.
b.png)
Barricade Shooting?
Knox: "Video #2 depicts two separate bursts of firearms discharge residues (smoke) appearing contemporaneously with each of the audible shots. The two separate areas of discharge residues, in conjunction with different pitch and tone values for the audible shots, indicate that two separate shots were fired by two separate individuals, both of whom are located in the area of Barricade #1. ... his shield was struck by both shots. The bullet from the second shot inflicted Dmytriv’s wounds."
There may be shooters ahead, blocked from view, and there are Berkut - one of their helmets may be visible (orange), ducking behind the sandbags and junk called a barricade. The second puff of smoke I see is at, or in line with, Dmyriv's shield, in front of a sign (yellow) that, in turn, is in front of the barricade. No Berkut fired from out in front like that, even if the angle of fire might seem plausible. To me, that smoke seems related to the bullet's impact (vaporized aluminum?). The smoke plume appears so large, I expect i's much closer to the camera, like right at the shield. The smoke from that round's firing is somewhere off-frame, apparently to the right and above. An earlier puff of smoke or dust to the right looks like to me like another round impacting the ground or maybe a sandbag, apparently on this side of a low wall and the barricade, where there is clearly no shooter under the junk. If I'm right about that (no expert), then just the one shot hit Dmytriv and his shield, as the one new hole suggested. And that would mean 2 people fired at once, one shooting the police barricade, as the other killed Mr. Dmytriv.
.png)
2) Andrii Ivanovych Dygdalovych
Katchanovski's 2021 report makes no mention of this case, so the following analysis should add something.
Situ overview: "A. I. Dygdalovych was fatally shot at 09:22:51. In a video captured near Hotel Ukraine, Dygdalovych can be observed approaching and standing with a group of four other protesters on Instytutska Street. At the time of fatal gunshot, Dygdalovych was oriented southeast with the front of his torso facing Barricade 1 and Barricade 2. Law enforcement officers are visible in the video frame at those locations at the moment of Dygdalovych’s shooting. A video documenting law enforcement unit locations during, and after 09:22:51 in the vicinity of Dygdalovych are included in the collection of relevant videos. Spatial analysis of bullet trajectory and gunshot audio latency places the shooter causing Dygdalovych’s fatal wound within the Area of Interest."
.png)
Just one video is cited, although there is at least one other view from above (see appendix H video, 5:15), as shown at right. Dygdalovych is at center, in camouflage jacket, green helmet, shield up to the left but not ahead, in the moment before he was shot.
Medical report
Entry: "Wound № 2 is located in the facies anterior of the thoracic cage, on the right side, 157 cm upward, along the cartilages alignment (lineae parasternales), level with the 2nd right rib." Lineae parasternales = parasternal line - a vertical line that, by an image I found and compared to a 15cm half-torso, is 4-4.5cm right of center. It may be even closer to the center, damaging "heart, right atrium," despite being on the right side.
Exit: "№ 1 wound visible on the right part of the back, 140 cm from the soles upward, on the level in between the shoulder blade line and the median line ... 3 cm rightward of the linea mediana" (middle of the back or spine). The bullet exits 140cm up after entering at 157cm, so it traveled downward 17cm. Note shoulder blades run about the whole length of the rib cage, to about rib 9 or 10, and it seems the exit is near the bottom of that.
Medical report: "The relative victim and the person who fired the gun position at the firing instant is likely envisaged according to the injuries location. The shot direction - (onto the right upper-body part) is determined: anteroposteriorly (front-to-back), downward and several from left to right." What does "several" mean here? Maybe "barely," or "barely opposite?" To hit and exit on the right side, going left-to-right but damaging the heart, and wind up just 3cm right of center means the entry wound was maybe 1-2 cm right of center, and the 1-2 cm of travel to the right could be ignored to call a front-to-back injury.
Or, starting at the parasternal line 4-4.5cm right of center, and ending 3cm right of center actually makes for 1-1.5cm of travel right-to-left. So this point has to be left unclear, noting that it's a minor trend either way.
Injuries, mapped vs. modeled
For a given body length 185cm, again the entry and exit wounds come out too high to make sense. This is similar to Dmytriv's case, but less so, with just 9-10 cm discrepancy to his 33cm. This smaller difference is about that if measuring from the toes of extended feet rather than from the soles. The given entry wound to the chest, at 157 cm from the pelma, would be at neck or jaw level. So I shifted the entry to the 2nd rib where they described it, and the exit to 17 cm below that, which comes out about at rib 10. Path: front to back, little to no left-right movement (unclear), and descending 17cm.
In SITU's modeling, a descent is reflected, but grossly muted. - estimating where the modeling placed the wounds, then a 5.7cm descent is shown (30 pixels), The difference is threefold. This is a major distortion. The wound canal here starts from a lower point around the 3rd or 4th rib, and ends a bit higher than suggested. This "splits the difference" to make the leveling less obvious.
A visible left-to-right angle also seems to clash with the negligible trend described. The whole path seems shifted a bit to the right, making the problem appear even worse than it is, but it seems the exit was shifted more. Entry, as noted, should be 4 or 4.5cm right of center, but here it's more like 7-8cm right (Torso probably ~32cm wide, and it appears roughly halfway between median and side). The exit is near his right armpit, around 12-14 cm from the middle, not 3cm from the median, as reported. That's about 3-4cm shifted in front, 9-11cm in back, for some 5-8 cm of left-to-right motion. That includes and exceeds the described 1-2 cm rightward travel, or it might differ from 1-2 cm travel the other way by up to 10cm.
Knox: injuries not mentioned, but "In Video #3.1, movement of Dygdalovych’s jacket associated with the bullet impact can be seen at t = 113.920 s. The direction of fire is consistent with coming from the area of the barricades." No such movement is clear to me. SITU's video highlights his upper right back, where there may be some kind of bulge, but it can't be rel
Mapping
Distances estimate: The distance from the firearm to the camera/microphone is calculated at 65m to 128m. "These boundary values are consistent with the shots having been fired from somewhere between Barricade #1 and Dygdalovych" or right at the barricade, as decided, but no further out.
Position: torso facing roughly straight up this sidewalk, or a few degrees to the left, while his shield is up at an angle to cover his left side more than his front. There's no sign of his shield being hit before he topples sharply downward and seemingly straight back. The suggested fire is basically from the straight ahead, maybe a bit from the left or right, and quite downward. Here are the options, mapped on the model.
b.png)
All of these elevated spots are outside the audio-estimated area, and I see no matching, elevated spots within the area. Arcade Bank is partly in the area, but too far to the right. Barricade 1 is in the area, on a good left-of-ahead line, but the Berkut there had no jetpacks. Barricade 2 is a bit uphill and would have shooting from over those trucks, but that's probably not high enough, and it's also deemed out of range. Maybe the estimated area was wrong in this case. This one is not so easy to answer.
It's also reasonable to suspect the same shooter location as Dmytriv a minute earlier, but the best joint option would be between red & orange here, verging into just "possible" for Dygdalovych and supposedly out of range. Two nearby shooting positions so near the police barricade may not be the most logical or most convenient option, but it seems likely here.
Barricade Shooting?
Knox: "Taken in context, the physical evidence with respect to the shooting of Dygdalovych indicates that he was likely shot by government personnel located near Barricade #1 in the video." It would need to be a spot in the air above them, but even ignoring that...
There are at least 6 or 7 Berkut snipers seen in CCTV footage from the far side, with 5 or 6 seen from the protesters' side. In the moments before the shooting, one has a rifle he fires to the left, and then we hear another shot with a different sound, from someone else unseen. Then the Berkut aims the rifle again to the left but doesn't fire, and just before Dygdalovych is shot, he swings it to aim nearly at the camera (closer to D, but not AT him). But there's no sign of discharge from any visible rifles when the fatal shot rings out. He didn't fire that shot, so that rifle has an alibi. Another 2 or 3 rifles are seen just to the right, fired at some points, but not at this crucial one. But another area is invisible behind the shields, so we could imagine anything happening there.
.png)
3) Yuriy Grygorovych Parashchuk
Situ overview: "Yu. G. Parashchuk was fatally shot at 09:48:57. In two videos captured near Hotel Ukraine, Parashchuk can be observed crossing Instytutskaya Street with a group of protesters before crouching on the south side of the street in a cluster of trees near Metro Khreshchatyk. At the time of fatal gunshot, Parashchuk was oriented southeast with his head facing Barricade 1 and Barricade 2. Law enforcement officers can be observed in three videos at Barricade 2 at the time of Parashchuk’s shooting. Spatial analysis of bullet trajectory and gunshot audio latency places the shooter causing Parashchuk’s fatal wound within the Area of Interest."
Knox: "Taken in context, the physical evidence with respect to the shooting of Dygdalovych [sic - he was refering to Parashchuk] indicates that he was likely shot by government personnel."
Exit "wound № 1 … is positioned at parietal region at the left." Both injuries are in the same area - the major upper back part of the skull, shaded green at right. They're close together, connected by a short canal, or maybe more of a trough in this case.
Canal: "The gunshot wound canal that goes from entrance gunshot wound № 2 is positioned at the parietal region at the left in a direction from the front to the back, a little from the top to the bottom, affecting the skull bones, covering and calvaria, and ends with an exit gunshot wound № 1 at the parietal region at the left." Two consistent angles shown at right. Other angles are possible, and I don't think we can get more exact in this case. But then, I didn't dig as deep into the medical report in this case.No left-right direction evident in a front-back trajectory means the bullet came from pretty well straight ahead. It could be from a bit to the left or right, or even two or three bits - it's a short canal and vaguely described. Any downward motion evident in such a short space means a pretty serious elevated shooter, as with the other 2 cases.
Improper Modeling
In the video, Parashchuk is facing mainly up the street (green lines - copied into a few places for reference - it has a slight curve here), but his posture is clearly rotated to face a bit to the right. Compare to tree ahead (light blue) - he's facing to its right, not directly at it. The modeling ignores this, having him face right up the street and into that tree, or perhaps a tiny bit to the left. His body seems modeled about right relative to the "camera", but the scene is different around him, so he's facing up the street instead of to the right. This will shift the origin of fire to the left, towards SITU's "area of interest."
.png)
Unless they meant the other line (dark blue) was the sidewalk edge, or some alternate edge in an interpolated scene? That would fit poorly with the sign and with other models, but would add several degrees more of "interesting" difference. But the meaning of this line in unclear to me, but it must mean something. It casts a shadow.
The left side of the head is hit better from the left than from the right, but no lateral direction is mentioned in the medical report. Still, Situ decided the fire came well from the left of his body. The view above appears to show a descent, but that's actually travel from the left side (see video, 3:18, 3:27, as shown below). Coming in that left-rotated position, that will shift the fire origin even further to the left, getting it right were they wanted it; they trace the fire to barricade 2, left half, where Berkut with rifles were seen.
.png)
I happen to agree he was probably shot from left of straight ahead, and maybe to that degree. But he wasn't facing left across the street. He was facing to the right, somewhat towards Arcade Bank. In context, he topples back and a bit to the right, consistent with a hit somewhat from the left of that position. But straight ahead or even a bit to the right - which would be at the bank - also seem possible.
b.png)
So we happen to agree on likely left origin of fire, but I have the scene set properly around Mr. Parashchuk (but probably not exactly), while SITU rotated the scene, like it's all on a giant "lazy Susan," so they could have that red line land at barricade 2. Well, first it lands some meters above that point, and then there's the ignored downward angle, yet again, and then the blame drops right on the cops.
Barricade Shooting?
Situ video notes discharge from a Berkut weapon at barricade 2, at one point in the long video 3, but not at the moment Parashchuk is shot. They argue that the fatal shot were fired from there, but it is odd how it wound up less visible than other shots. Or do they have an alibi of not shooting then?
Shot from Behind?
Professor Katchanovski, at ConsortiumNews, raised one ill-founded question here:
"In the case of Yuriy Parashchuk, forensic medical examinations found that his entry and exit wounds were in the back of his head on the left side. But the 3D analysis moved the entry wound location to the front area and changed its somewhat top-to-bottom direction to nearly horizontal. Frames from a video by a French photographer shows a large bullet hole in the back of Parashchuk’s red helmet. How can he be shot in the back of his head by the Berkut police on a nearly similar horizontal level?"
The 2021 report continued this:
"[F]orensic medical examinations by the government experts for the prosecution, a testimony of his sister at the trial, and a single bullet hole in his helmet in synchronized videos show that Yuri Parashchuk was killed in the back of his head when he faced the Berkut police. This evidence suggest that he was shot from the Bank Arkada in the Maidan-controlled area. (See Video Appendix H)."
But he's seen facing roughly SE towards police line, with the bank to his right, not behind. Helmet and damage - apparent bullet entry - visible early in this video, but I'm not sure what side that is.
It's not clear to me that Situ shifted the entry to the front; the parietal region is large, starting just about where they placed the entry wound. Maybe medical photos clarify that point. The medical report does describe entry and exit wounds, confusingly, at the same spot, but it also describes the path between them as "front to the back" besides a little from the top to the bottom. If that were backward, then it's backwards in the medical report too, and real angle would be from behind and slightly UP. That makes no sense, except maybe for a Hotel Ukraine basement window.
The medical report could be wrong, but Katchanovski doesn't seem to suspect this, and unless there's better evidence (like contradictory photographs), it's best to defer. IF the helmet damage suggests an opposite trajectory, it's probably because Parashchuk was wearing it backwards.
Furthermore, he topples backwards, probably due to the bullet's velocity in that direction. There's a sidewalk impact just ahead of him a moment earlier - hitting at the base of a low wall on the southeast side, making a puff of concrete dust. That probably came from ahead, not from behind Paraschuk. And the dust seems propelled to the left and down the street, maybe because that shot also came from ahead and to the camera's right.
Mapping
video 4: distance from camera in a range between 72 meters (between Barricade #1 and Parashchuk) up to 245] m = between Barricade #1 and Barricade #2. Video #5 - near Barricade #1 to beyond Barricade #2.
.png)
3 plausible directions to the left in red, and 3 to the right in orange - best fit for injury and collapse is straight ahead (white) or the nearest positions to the left or right. That's at Specialized school No. 94 "Hellada" at Olhynska St, 2/4 - a spot I know nothing about. An open balcony there is also noted in green, but it's probably too low and too open to work. The best elevation is available some degrees to the right, at Arcade Bank, SE end, which also seems possible, given the victim's actual position. A left angle also seems plausible, but 10 Insytutska st. seems a bit too short to fit the bill. Barricade 1 is ruled out by being too far left, relative to the victim's actual position, and also the Berkut had no jetpacks.
Conclusion
As noted above, SITU claimed this sniper modeling was done "in the service of human rights fact-finding and reporting." It was used in court in efforts to convict certain men who could be innocent, at the risk of absolving the true killers, and in the service of cementing a rather dubious narrative as legal fact. Over and over, we can see their modeling errors happen de-elevate the shooters to street level, and to tweak the injuries, postures, or spatial orientation of the victims, always to the effect of pointing to the police barricades. That is a politically useful direction for the Ukrainian prosecutors, for their bosses, and for their foreign backers. Would they have commissioned the study otherwise?
If only solicited expert distortions can make their case, and only this well, after having the chance to select three best examples ... the prosecutors must realize their case is deeply, deeply flawed. But they flaunt it because that's their job, and the authors get it approved by others doing their jobs. Those foreign, "Euro-Atlantic" backers have ways of compromising or running foundations to finance little magic shows just like this, and the New York Times, for one, can be counted on to help elevate it into millions of minds, as a newsworthy "fact" of global relevance. It's not clear how conscious they are of all this, but ... it's hard to imagine so many distortions were modeled in accidentally, with no one at SITU noticing.
Buildings Review
New IDs - maybe someone has info on them.
* Instytutska St, 10 - 2-story - includes Committee on construction, town planning and housing and communal services. It's next to police barricade 2, but they may have been too busy to prevent someone breaking in by a back door. - showed it above - no muzzle flashes I can see, no movement on the roof, but ... it's better than invisible Berkut floating above their barricade to the left.
* Specialized school No. 94 "Hellada" at Olhynska St, 2/4 - 4 story - center of map below, just south of "140" - not as close to the barricade, so likely more accessible to false-flag criminals, and with better elevation, and not much greater distance. It's not visible from many views, but would overlook the metro station and some exposed positions, like Mr. Parashchuk.
.png)
I had looked into sniper positions before, in 2014. I wrote this, and it's not bad: Who was Maidan snipers' mastermind? - OrientalReview.org - map from this is below. Glad I made it. I somehow underrated the clarity of fire from the hotel, being overly-focused on new spots, to be special. I might do the same here, but ... well, I gave the reasons why those are my special suggestions.
BBC's Gatehouse had reported on sniper fire from Hotel Ukraine, then asked around for a later report. He had people suggest the Nat bank building and Bankova st. 1 as relevant sniper perches, presumably government-held. The latter does stand out, perhaps tall enough to overcome that distance. On the same line but closer and more likely relevant, Instytutska St, 10 (not noted on the map - at center under the word "barricade").
I had noted a closer "Minister's Club" - presumably government-held, but perhaps overrun. I forget now exactly why, but it might be a contender for any shooting that did come from around barricade 2, especially if it seemed bit left and a bit high for them. Arcade Bank panned out. I was fixated on the NW wing, but some cases might indicate its far, SE end. The "House of Chimeras" direction - from prosecutor general's update - is interesting. It points to this far end of the bank, which can matter for elevated shooting, and which came up. House of Chimeras can hardly fit unless it's an enormously tall place, which it isn't.
more sources
Did Police Kill These Protesters in Ukraine? What the Videos Show - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
IRF.UA "How it really happened: reconstruction of Euromaidan … ": 403 Forbidden
Situ "practice note" published in the Journal of Human Rights Practice in April 2018: Reconstructing Human Rights Violations Using Large Eyewitness Video Collections: The Case of Euromaidan Protester Deaths | Journal of Human Rights Practice | Oxford Academic (oup.com): paywalled
SITU partner Brad Samuels also gave a presentation on the Euromaidan Event Reconstruction as a visiting artist at Yale University in fall 2017. Bradley Samuels: Experiments at the Intersection of Art, Law and Innovation - YouTube
Critical response: Katchanovski, April 22, 2019 The Buried Maidan Massacre and Its Misrepresentation by the West (consortiumnews.com)
Question Answered: Who Was Behind the 2014 Maidan Massacre? (internationalist.org)
.png)
.png)