> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Why not quote the full sentence?
> Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
I'd like to particularly emphasize:
> the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome
> there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.
BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this:
> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych