News.Kyiv.Me.

Two days ago the Web and airwaves were filled with breathless reports of a leaked phone call, lasting about eleven minutes and posted on YouTube, between two officials, in which one reported a conversation with a certain Ukrainian doctor named “Olga.”  She allegedly had told him that, based on the bullets found in and around the bodies of slain protestors and policemen in Kyiv at the apex of the recent violent showdown, it appeared that the snipers had been hired by the rebels, not the government or military, since the bullets that killed victiims on both sides matched. 

Some, such as Russia-funded TV network RT, swallowed the claim whole from the start–and others joined in when the phone call was confirmed as real.  (RT’s editor-inchief, in attacking anchor Liz Wahl after she quit, even demanded to know why the U.S. media was ignoring this firm evidence of the protestors hiring the snipers.)  For whatever reason,  it didn’t seem to matter to them that the fact that the phone conversation took place did not mean that the reported chat with the doctor had been interpreted and relayed accurately.

So the headlines, from partisans and quasi-journalists, rang out about this purportedly strong evidence, even proof, that the protestors had hired the snipers, apparently to shoot a few dozen of their own to draw international outrage and sympathy.

A few of us raised questions from the start about this single-sourced  “evidence.”   And who was this Olga?  Could she be found and interviewed?

 The “evidence” was weak from the start, second hand, hearsay.  Even though there was no way to judge the veracity and potential bias of the officials–and even if the official was trying to speak truthfully there was no way to know if he’d misinterpreted the doctor’s remarks–the conspiracy fans, pro-Putin agitators and faux journos promoted it widely.

Of course it turns out the doctor, who we learn is quite famous and important in that country–Olga Botomolets–denies suggesting any such thing.  Here’s just one account of it, near the close of an excellent profile of her. 

In another interview, with the Telegraph, she could have been referring to the ‘journalists” when she said,  “I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact. It’s not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact.” 

Might she have said one thing to that official in the leaked call and is  changing her story now?  It’s always possible, although it’s hard to guess the motivation.  But, in any case,  citing her as the only source for “evidence” that snipers backed protestors is ludicrous.

Dr. Botomolets, by the way,  is so well-known and respected that she has been offered key positions in the new government there, which she has turned down because she is suspicious of whether the new regime will make good on promises for reform.