As some of you know, I’ve extensively covered the case of Barry Pring, as all evidence shows, murdered by his Ukrainian wife Anna Ziuzina by Kiev, in 2008:
In January of this year, an inquest was held, which delivered a verdict of unlawful death, and more, the coroner, Dr Elizabeth Earland, stated that Barry had been ‘tricked’ into standing by the side of the road – clearly the only person who could have done this, his Ukrainian wife, Anna Ziuzina (pictured with Barry).
Things really started to move after that, with the case even being raised in Prime Minister’s Question Time, in late February, as MP Neil Parish asked the Prime Minister to ensure that justice was served against Anna Ziuzina. Pressure grew, and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson was due to discuss it with high-level Ukrainian officials in early April.
All of this was highly inconvenient for the UK, and their position of blanket support for Ukraine, whitewashing of any negatives in Ukraine. Boris Johnson was involved in the case, but never once publicly mentioned it – even when he was in Ukraine at that time. Actually, following the inquest verdict, there was considerable attention on it, all of which risked putting something in the public domain entirely, dangerously contradictory to the message the UK wants to project on Ukraine: corruption is just as bad, or worse, than it ever was there. (The UK message is that ‘everything in Ukraine is getting better after Euromaidan, reform‘ etc).
Actually, when I’d interviewed MP Neil Parish in February, he stated the problem with corruption in Ukraine:
As the case was going up, it was clearly going to have ramifications, and implications. The UK, only used to fawning over Ukraine (just have a look at Boris here, at the recent ‘UK / Ukraine reform conference’ in London. ), was going to have to ask some uncomfortable questions of Ukraine. The UK, used to only issuing glowing reports about Ukraine, was going to have to say some hard words.
But just as things were about to get very inconvenient for the UK, something happened. After a letter by Ziuzina’s lawyer, long, rambling, full of factual errors, just two months after the inquest, the verdict was quashed. Just like that.
The coroner had had nine years to look over the facts of the case. Yet a claim based on easily disproved evidence by Ziuzina’s lawyer (and having earlier had his letter, I wrote to the coroner disproving it – he claimed a U-turn was 200 metres from the restaurant, it was actually over 600 metres – easily checkable on Google Maps), had the coroner suddenly ‘becoming aware of new evidence of this practice of hailing taxis’. This was one of 3 reasons cited in the quashing.
Meanwhile the coroner suddenly dismissed my evidence as being based on ‘commercial interest’ – despite the e-book I wrote on the subject not being on sale for over 4 years, that never having been for ‘commercial interest’, and my having done nothing of any ‘commercial interest’ on the theme. Plus, my evidence, praised so fulsomely in January by the coroner, was now ‘hearsay evidence’, despite everything in the 58-page document I’d submitted being fact-checked, and referenced.
The other reason given for the quashing was that Ziuzina herself was not present, despite her being given every notification, and opportunity to attend.
The quashing of the inquest verdict was a farce, an insult to the Pring family, a mockery of the reputation of the British legal system. Since then, Ziuzina has lauched a PR campaign to clear her name, with members of the UK press seemingly happy to take her lawyer’s word, perhaps more than that, and the UK government more than happy to allow the Ziuzina campaign, to avoid pressure for a second inquest from which may emerge more uncomfortable details of the UK’s new ‘best friend’, Ukraine, and its true nature.
The injustice for Barry Pring just goes on, as his murder in 2008 becomes an ‘inconvenience’ for the UK government in 2017.
More to come.