In the MH17 trial the defence team of Oleg Pulatov will be making presentation for the next day and a half. Instead of discussing their client's guilt, they will be talking about what they think should be investigated. Deflect and distract. Watch live. https://content.uplynk.com/player5/2GnnnRvTI7gzCPovooYd9Uec.html

"We are going to have to proceed very much against the tide."

The title of their presentation is "A Different Look at the Case."

"Only about 30 percent of the wreckage of the aircraft has been recovered."

"No motive for launching the rocket has ever been identified." Completely false. Russian TV triumphantly announced on the day of the disaster that a Ukrainian military plane had been shot down by "DPR" militants.

Defendant Igor Girkin also boasted "We warned you: don't fly in our skies!"

Defence lawyer Boudewijn van Eijck says the prosecution is "extremely attached" to the Buk missile scenario. Video of the Buk being transported to and from the launch site was found, as well as actual pieces of the Buk missile at the site.

Russia's fighters in Donbass celebrated the downing of MH17 by posing in the wreckage. "DPR" leader Alexander Zakharchenko was photographed sitting in MH17 seats.

The defence lawyer is now asking whether there was a peer review of the expert testimony the prosecution is relying on. The phrase "What about" is likely to come up frequently in his speech.

Now onto translation discrepancies in the evidence.

Oleg Pulatov is being prosecuted too early, before the entire chain of command has been identified, his defence lawyer says. It has been six years since MH17 was shot down.

When will the investigation into the commander of the air defence in Snizhne, Vladimir Tsemakh, be completed? - the defence asks. Tsemakh was in custody in Ukraine but exchanged to Russia for Ukrainian hostages including Oleg Sentsov last year.

So the defence's position is that MH17 might not have been shot down by a Russian Buk, but if it was, there isn't enough evidence about the role of their client, Oleg Pulatov.

The obviousness of the fact that MH17 was shot down by a Russian Buk is spun by the defence as "jumping to conclusions".

The defence accuses the prosecution of attempting to steer public opinion by showing a video of an arena test of a Buk missile in 2016.

The defence thinks the JIT investigation should have questioned witnesses from the Ukrainian Air Force to discuss the scenario of a Ukrainian jet shooting down MH17.

Stories made up by Russian state media are given the status of "alternative scenarios" by the defence.

Now the defence is complaining that the evidence mainly came from "the Ukrainian side", i.e. the country where the disaster occurred.

The defence casts doubt on everyone who provided evidence: experts, Ukraine, and the media.

The defence is asking why there are no non-existent tapped calls between Ukrainian military personnel discussing a non-existent Ukrainian attack on MH17.

Onto the validity of soil samples.

Extremely early on the Buk missile scenario was being "pushed" by Ukraine, the defence says.

Everything that supports the Buk missile scenario is accepted by the JIT and everything that doesn't support it "is simply explained away," the defence says.

The defence is showing a video of Colin Powell.

The MH17 trial has now become completely random.

Now the defence wants to talk about whether there was a Ukrainian military fighter jet in the vicinity of MH17.

The defence has punted that the Ukrainian military might have wanted to shoot down a passenger jet to blame it on Russia.

Now the defence is saying the Ukrainian military used civilian flights as a human shield when bombing eastern Ukraine.

This nice woman from Sloviansk talking about the Ukrainian "junta" is now being used by the defence.

The defence presentation is full of Russian propaganda and very offensive to the relatives of the victims who are in court today.

The question is whether the defence is now going to claim that a small boy was crucified in Sloviansk, as Russian TV reported.

Wonderful, the defence is now playing the sound of planes flying.

The defence wants to talk about "the way in which the Ukrainian army conducts war".

The defence is saying that a coup took place in Ukraine in 2014, repeating Russian propaganda word for word.

It was a coup by "pro-Western nationalists", the defence says.

It is important that the human shield scenario be investigated, the defence says.

Will the defence mention that the Russian militants shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane a month before MH17, killing 49 servicemen?

Now they're talking about how corrupt Ukraine is.

That's the end of the defence's introduction to their presentation.