Forensic Ballistic and Medical Examinations by Ukrainian Government Experts

Abstract

This chapter analyzes results of forensic ballistic and medical examinations and investigative experiments by government experts for the Ukrainian government investigation and the Maidan massacre trial.

This chapter analyzes results of forensic ballistic and medical examinations and investigative experiments by government experts for the Ukrainian government investigation and the Maidan massacre trial. Forensic medical examinations show that nearly all protesters while facing Berkut police on the ground were shot from steep directions from sides or the back that match the Maidan-controlled buildings. Government ballistic experts determined that many protesters were killed or wounded from the Maidan-controlled buildings. A forensic ballistic examination conducted by government institute experts with use of an automatic computer-based IBIS-TAIS system found that bullets extracted from killed protesters did not match police database of bullet samples from Kalashnikov assault rifles of members of the Kyiv Berkut regiment, including the special Berkut company that is charged with the massacre of the protesters. Forensic examinations of the bullet holes by the government experts along with videos and photos showed that Berkut policemen were shooting above and in front of Maidan protesters, in particular, into the far-right Svoboda-controlled Hotel Ukraina, which was the main location of the Maidan snipers, and in trees, poles, walls, and the ground.

The investigation by the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine (GPU) determined based on their testimonies, investigative experiments, and forensic examinations that about half of the Maidan protesters were wounded on February 20, 2014 from sectors where no Berkut police were located, and did not charge anyone with these shooting (GPU, 2016). Since the trial and investigation testimonies of commanders of government sniper and counter-sniper units and other evidence, such as videos, revealed that government snipers arrived in their positions when almost all protesters were already killed and wounded, and therefore could not massacre these Maidan protesters, this suggests that they were wounded from the Maidan-controlled buildings or areas and that absolute majority of them also testified concerning snipers in the Maidan-controlled locations. One such protester said that when he was wounded, he heard a gunshot behind and that shots came not from the front but from the back, i.e., from the Maidan-controlled area (Video, 2023b, 33:29). Another stated in court that he was shot from Zhovtnevyi Palace and saw a sniper there (Video, 2023d).

The Maidan massacre trial revealed that government ballistic experts found that at least six Maidan protesters had been killed, and at least ten were wounded from Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings or areas (see Chapter 8). The prosecution did not use forensic ballistic experts during the investigation to determine trajectories of bullets and locations of shooters of the absolute majority of the Maidan protesters, and failed to conduct them even after the Maidan massacre trial ordered them to conduct such examinations, specifically to determine if these bullet trajectories were from the Maidan-controlled buildings. A Berkut lawyer stated during the trial that the prosecution stopped these court-ordered investigative experiments after government forensic experts determined that the first few Maidan protesters were shot from the Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina and Music Conservatory (Zasidannia, 2022, 5:46).

A ballistic expert in an on-site investigative experiment identified Zhovtnevyi Palace and not the ground level in front of it as the most likely location of the shooter in the Yuri Ksenchuk case because of steep angle of his wound. The Berkut was filmed in front of this building shooting around that time, while Ksenchuk was among other protesters below them on the hill. A forensic ballistic report determined that the 7.62 × 39 caliber bullet which wounded Ksenchuk was industrially made but not from live ammunition. This suggests a nonstandard bullet, such as a training bullet, which was modified and put into a bullet casing with gunpowder, and indicates that he was shot not by the Berkut special company or any other government law enforcement unit. The GPU investigation, this protester, and Berkut did not identify him in any of the videos. But information about his location in the investigative experiment video and other evidence presented during the trial, such as location and direction of wounds, points to simultaneous wounding of another protester near him from similar vertical and horizontal angles and matches a simultaneous wounding of him and another protester (Ihor Vikuliov) in Zelenyi Front video at 9:14 am (Zasidannia, 2016a, 2016b). Videos show that Maidan protesters entered Zhovtnevyi Palace by that time (see Video, 2023a; Chapter 3).

Ballistic experts during investigative experiments conducted for the GPU investigation determined that Yuri Kravchuk was wounded not from the Berkut barricade, as the prosecution claimed, but from Bank Arkada or the attached metro entrance. A video showing his position behind a tree just prior to almost simultaneous first two woundings and his reported wound locations and steep directions of these wounds are consistent with Bank Arkada (16 minuten, 2014; Zasidannia, 2016d). However, a Belgian VRT video shows that his position at the moment of the last wounding was different than he described during the trial and the investigative experiment. This position facing Hotel Ukraina and forensic medical reports conclusions that the entry wound was located in the left knee area and the exit wound in his left thigh area point to a gunshot from the Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina (Het, 2014; Zasidannia, 2016d). The crucial fragment of this VRT video showing the moment of the wounding of Kravchuk was not mentioned during the trial or in investigation documents (see Video, 2023a).

A ballistic expert found during an on-site GPU investigative experiment that Anatolii Panchuk was wounded in his left back area from a sector, which excludes the Berkut barricade but includes Zhovtnevyi Palace corner, Kinopalats and Muzeinyi Lane areas (Zasidannia, 2016c).

Findings of forensic medical examinations, which were done by government experts for the prosecution and were made public during the Maidan massacre trial, revealed that the absolute majority of Maidan activists were shot on February 20, 2014, from side and back directions and from top to bottom directions. Since videos and photos showed that the absolute majority of the killed and wounded protesters faced the Berkut police in front of them on the same or similar ground level and that Maidan-controlled buildings were generally behind them and on the left and right side, this forensic evidence means that they could not have been shot by Berkut but were shot by snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings. One does not need to be a forensic expert to understand this since bullets do not fly like guided missiles in order to hit the protesters from the directions and height that do not match the locations of the Berkut police.

These forensic medical examinations indicated that 40 out of 48 protesters, with whose murder Berkut policemen were charged, were shot dead from significant vertical angles based on the directions of their wounds specified by the forensic medical examinations. At least 36 of these protesters were killed when the Berkut policemen were filmed on the same or similar level on the ground. Just one killed protester, Ihor Kostenko, had nearly horizontal entry and exit wounds, but he was shot sideways. The video of his killing and the direction of his wounds pointed to the gunshot from a Maidan-controlled location. The Maidan massacre trial verdict also suggested the same (see Chapters 3, 8).

Similarly, 48 out of 51 wounded protesters, whose wound directions were revealed at the trial and with whose shooting on February 20 Berkut policemen were charged, had wounds at significant vertical angles. The significant vertical angles of wounds are consistent with snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings or on the roofs of these buildings and not with their shooting by the Berkut police on the ground.

Three Maidan activists were shot by hunting pellets before the Berkut special company even was deployed in that area. The Maidan massacre trial verdict stated that the Berkut did not kill them because of the timing and because there was no forensic evidence of use of hunting ammunition by the Berkut. This is the evidence that they were killed by the Maidan opposition shooters from hunting weapons.

Forensic examinations by government experts determined that Viktor Chmilenko and Oleksandr Khrapachenko were killed by expanding hunting bullets. Their caliber did not match calibers of weapons used by the special Berkut company, whose members were charged with killing them. A forensic ballistic examination of a bullet fragment found that Viktor Chmilenko was shot dead by a 30-06 caliber “Springfield” bullet (Zasidannia, 2016f, 3:25:57). This is an old US military caliber bullet that is now used for hunting and sport shooting. This bullet caliber does not match calibers of weapons with which Berkut and other government units in Ukraine were armed at the time of the massacre. His killing was filmed by a French photographer in a widely publicized video (Sous, 2014).

Forensic medical examination, which was presented by the GPU during the trial, revealed that Chmilenko was shot at a steep vertical angle with bullet holes in his neck and left shoulder. His position at the moment of his shooting in this video and a significant angle of his wound indicate that Viktor Chmilenko was shot from Hotel Ukraina. The prosecution charged that the Berkut policemen, who were located at that time on a barricade on the opposite side at practically horizontal level with Chmilenko, shot him (Video, 2023a).

The forensic examination determined that Oleksandr Khrapachenko was killed by a corroded 0.308 Winchester caliber expanding hunting bullet. This NATO bullet caliber does not match the caliber of AKMS used by members of the special Berkut company, who are charged with his killing (Zasidannia, 2016f, 3:08:35). This forensic expert-level evidence corroborates other evidence, such as eyewitness testimony of another member of the Volhynian company of the Maidan Self-Defence, which suggested that Khrapachenko was shot not by Berkut but by a “sniper” from Hotel Ukraina (Video, 2023a, 2023e). An Omega sniper was also charged in 2019 with his killing. But he was released by a court because of lack of evidence.

The government forensic experts determined that Oleh Ushnevych was killed with 9-mm-caliber handgun from Hotel Ukraina. The videos show that he along with several other protesters was hiding behind a wall, which completely shielded them from the Berkut positions, at the moment of his killing. It was physically impossible to shoot him from the Berkut positions. Testimonies of eyewitnesses at the Maidan massacre trial, the Maidan massacre trial verdict, and even the initial determination by the government investigation stated that he was killed from the Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina (see Chapters 3, 5, 8).

One killed protester (Ivan Panteleev) and one wounded protester were shot with 7.62 × 54 caliber bullets. The prosecution stated that since the caliber matches Dragunov sniper rifles, this shows that they were shot by unidentified government snipers. But these bullets were not of a special sniper type but of LPS type developed in 1908 for Mosin rifles. Government units were not equipped with long obsolete Mosin rifles. However, a deputy commander of Berkut regiment stated during the trial that a Mosin rifle was later found in Dnipro Hotel and that the investigation did not test if it matched these bullets. This hotel was then used as a Right Sector base, and Andrii Parubii, who was the Maidan Self-Defense Commander and became the head of the National Security and Defense Council afterward, helped the Right Sector activists in this hotel a few weeks after the massacre to evacuate their weapons in music cases without confiscating or checking whether they were used during the Maidan massacre. A Spilne TV live video stream referred to protesters who were in Hotel Ukraina at the time of the massacre and were armed not only with hunting rifles and AKMS but also with Mosin rifles (Video, 2023a).

A forensic examination, which was conducted by Ukrainian government institute experts on the prosecution request with use of an automatic computer-based IBIS-TAIS system in January 2015, determined that bullets extracted from killed protesters, trees, and Hotel Ukraina rooms did not match bullet samples from any 7.62 × 39 caliber Kalashnikov assault rifles of members of the entire Kyiv Berkut regiment, including the special Berkut company (Zasidannia, 2016e, 2:39:23).

Senior Ukrainian government officials falsely claimed that it was not possible to conduct such matching because both the weapons used by the Berkut special company during the Maidan massacre and the Berkut bullet samples database were stolen by Berkut commanders and members who escaped with them to Crimea in order to remove such crucial evidence. However, the SBU and the GPU revealed in 2016 that the Berkut weapons cut into pieces were found in August 2015 buried in a shallow pit and in a nearby pond in a Kyiv City park. The GPU announced later that a leader and a member of a pro-Maidan organization of veteran paratroopers removed, cut into pieces, and buried the Berkut weapons.

A forensic examination, which reversed in 2019 results of this and some other 40 previous forensic bullets examinations and matched bullets from the killed and wounded Maidan activists to Berkut Kalashnikovs, also contradicted synchronized videos, which show that times and directions of gunshots by Berkut did not coincide with times and directions of killings of Maidan activists and on-site investigative experiments by government ballistic experts pointing to bullet trajectories from Maidan-controlled locations, and locations and directions of wounds in forensic medical examinations. It also contradicted testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded Maidan activists and several hundreds of prosecution and defense witnesses and other witnesses about snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations (see Chapters 3, 4, 5).

The 2014 forensic ballistic examinations presented by the prosecution at the Maidan massacre trial found that 19 protesters were killed on February 20 by 7.62 × 39 mm caliber bullets which match calibers not only of AKM Kalashnikov assault rifles, but also hunting versions of Kalashnikovs, or other weapons of this caliber, such as Simonov carbine (SKS). They indicated that Ivan Bliok was killed from Vepr carbine, a hunting version of Kalashnikov machine gun. Three other protesters were killed by pellets used in hunting. Two protesters were killed by expanding hunting bullets, whose calibers did not match calibers of weapons used by the special Berkut company, whose members were charged with killing these protesters (Zasidannia, 2016f). Videos showed protesters with hunting rifles in Hotel Ukraina during the massacre (see Chapter 3 and Video, 2023a).

Results of forensic ballistic expert analyses, which were conducted for the GPU investigation in spring and summer of 2014 but made public for the first time during the trial on November 12, 2015, and on June 30, 2016, revealed that at least 10 protesters (Baidovsky, Kemsky, Korneev, Saienko, Zhalovaha, Shymko, Dmytriv, Ilkiv, Poliansky, and Smolensky) were killed from the same single 7.62 × 39 caliber weapon, and that this weapon could have been a Kalashnikov assault rifle, a hunting carbine, or other firearms of this caliber (Zasidannia, 2015). These forensic ballistic reports along with other evidence, which was revealed during the trial, indicate that these protesters were killed from the same weapon from Hotel Ukraina and Bank Arkada. This suggests that the snipers in Bank Arkada were the Maidan snipers from the same group as in Hotel Ukraina. Bullets went through bodies of more than half of the killed Maidan protesters.

The prosecution revealed that only 24 out of about 100 bullets extracted from the bodies of Maidan protesters, who were killed and wounded on February 20, were identified by forensic examinations, but the caliber and other information concerning the unidentified bullets was not publicly revealed (see Chapter 8).

The government investigation determined that most of protesters killed on February 18–19, 2014, were shot with hunting pellets and smoothbore rifles used in hunting. It revealed that the absolute majority of 11 policemen killed on February 18–19, and all 4 policemen killed on February 20 were shot from similar types and calibers of hunting pellets and bullets, handgun bullets, and 7.62 × 39 bullets as the protesters.

The Kyiv court decisions revealed that the weapons used by the wounded checkpoint attackers in Sloviansk on April 20, 2014, were the same weapons from which two Internal Troops servicemen were killed, and three other policemen wounded on the Maidan on February 18. The court rulings specifically referred to two Right Sector activists, who were wounded during a Right Sector attack of the separatist checkpoint and many other Right Sector members as suspects in GPU investigation in killings and wounding the police on the Maidan (Ukhvala, 2016).

Visual examinations of the bullet holes and their impact points in a Hotel Ukraina room, which was occupied by a German ARD TV female journalist, by the government investigators confirmed that it was shot at from the direction of the Main Post Office, which was the Right Sector headquarters. A forensic examination by government experts also established that a likely bullet trajectory in the room 825 of Hotel Ukraina points to the roof of Music Conservatory, which was at the time of the Maidan massacre the headquarters of the far-right-linked special Maidan Self-Defense company of snipers. The hotel room was occupied by an ARD journalist. The Maidan massacre trial verdict made the same determination (see Chapters 3, 8, Video, 2023f).

The visual reconstruction based on government forensic expert reports concerning locations and directions of bullet holes on the massacre site in trees, flower box, and in Hotel Ukraina, as well as videos and photos of locations and directions of these bullet holes, shows that the Berkut police and Omega were generally shooting above protesters at the second and higher floors of Hotel Ukraina and in electric poles, a flower box, and trees. It also shows that they did not target the Maidan protesters because of lack of bullet holes on the first floor of Hotel Ukraina, which was located behind several dozen protesters who were killed and wounded in that area (see Fig. 6.1).

Fig. 6.1

(based on Google Street Map)

The visual reconstruction of shooting at Maidan protesters and Western, Polish, and Russian journalists during the Maidan massacre in Ukraine and locations of snipers in Hotel Ukraina: a view from a Berkut barricade

The bullet holes identified in the government’s forensic reports showed that the Berkut police generally shot above protesters, at the second floor and above of Hotel Ukraina, into electric poles, and trees. Forensic examinations by government investigators did not report a single bullet hole in the hotel’s ground floor, which is located at the height of the protesters (Fig. 6.2).

Fig. 6.2

(Photo by the author)

Bullet holes in the electric pole from the government forces direction and one exit hole from the Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina direction

Forensic examinations by investigation experts also confirmed bullet holes from directions of Maidan-controlled buildings, in particular, in a flower box, an electric pole, a tree in the area of the massacre of Maidan protesters and also in one of Hotel Ukraina windows and Cabmin Club. The German ARD and US documentaries concerning the Maidan massacre showed that lasers from bullet holes in trees pointed to bullet trajectories from windows located on two different floors of Hotel Ukraina. The author’s photos of bullet holes in another tree indicated that the shots were from Muzeinyi Lane and Zhovtnevyi Palace directions (Chapter 3; Video, 2023c).

However, the government forensic experts reports omitted bullet holes in a wall near Bank Arkada and in at least three trees that pointed, based on laser beams in German and US documentaries and in videos and photos, to gunshots from directions of Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings. The comparison of various videos and photos made during and after the massacre, including photos by the author, along with an admission by the prosecution show that at least three of these trees were cut.

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 (Euromaidan, 2018). 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.

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. 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 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 (Katchanovski, 2019; Video, 2023g).

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 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, 2023g).

The prosecution, with some exceptions, used “complex forensic examinations” by medical experts, instead of ballistic experts, to determine locations of the shooters without on-site visits and any measurements and explanations provided. The prosecution presented these examinations as a definite proof that Berkut massacre the Maidan activists. However, various evidence, such as on-site investigative experiments by ballistic experts, locations and directions of bullet wounds specified in forensic medical examinations of the killed and wounded protesters, testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded Maidan activists, and synchronized videos, shows that the Berkut sector of fire in these “complex forensic examinations” by medical experts was fabricated. As Berkut lawyers and forensic medical experts stated, ballistic experts were supposed to conduct such examinations to determine the bullet trajectories and locations of the shooters. The judges and the jury in the Maidan massacre trial verdict agreed and excluded such examinations from the evidence.

The GPU investigation determined that two Berkut officers (Zubok and Spichak) were killed on February 20, 2014, by 7.62 mm caliber bullets from either a Kalashnikov assault rifle or Saiga on the Maidan between 8:00 and 8:20 am and that the direction of fire pointed to the Music Conservatory or nearby barricade. It also found that two other policemen (Mykhailovych and Symysiuk) were killed from the angles pointing to barricade near the Trade Union building with large caliber hunting pellets (Slidamy, 2016). The investigation later determined that the police were shot from a “Saiga,” a hunting version of Kalashnikov. The owner of Saiga confessed in a leaked video of his interrogation by the prosecution that he provided his weapon to the far-right-linked company of Maidan snipers in the Music Conservatory and that they shot the police. However, he was not detained and escaped to Spain.

Main findings of forensic examinations are summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Summary of main findings of forensic examinations of the Maidan massacre