FSB falsified evidence in the case of Andrey Kutuzov
Submitted by Редакция on 18 February, 2011 - 19:13February 17 in Tyumen, a regular court hearing on charges of party "Autonomous Action" Andrey Kutuzov of spreading "extremist" leaflets. On it were opened the shocking facts of falsification of evidence in a case that led the FSB.
As expected, the prosecution, represented by Assistant Attorney Central JSC Tyumen, DV Shcheglov examined the evidence. Started with a banner with different rallies, seized during a search ("Autonomous Action", "Our homeland - all of humanity", "For a radical reform of Ministry of Internal Affairs, etc.).That the prosecution wanted to prove to a demonstration of the "evidence" - is completely incomprehensible. That Andrew regularly happens at rallies, and sometimes he carries them? Well, he does not deny this, sort of. Shocked these banners to the audience and laid back.
Next began absurd highest order.The prosecution had enough last material evidence - CD-ROM Verbatim, for their version withdrawn from Andrew during the raid April 14, 2010. On the drive three file format Open Document, and two file format PDF. Defense and prosecution are interested in two files with the names and menty.odt menty.pdf. This, in fact, saying the layout of the most "extremist" in two different formats. That is, the hypothesis of charge is, apparently, is that Andrew has done a rally in front of this leaflet and recorded it on CD-ROM. Only here, this hypothesis fell apart as a house of cards.
Protection has previously said that to prove the exception, I just the disc is in principle impossible, because the search protocol is simply "104 CD-ROM."Already on the basis of this disc could dismiss as inadmissible evidence. But it was clear that the court put it mildly, biased, and therefore had to prove that Andrew was not a camel. And it is quite possible.
So, stuck the disk into the laptop looked. Date of change of all five files - 27 or October 29, 2009. Like everything fits together - angry extremist Kutuzov created files, burn them to disc and left it lying around until it came with a search warrant brave security officers and found no evidence.Open the file menty.odt in OpenOffice. Enjoying a date that puts the program itself is OpenOffice, regardless of dates, which puts the operating system. And we see the following information:
Last modified: 06/17/2010, 15:29:56
Printed: 6/17/2010, 15:24:12
June 17! On the drive, which Andrew allegedly recorded in October 2009, there are files that have changed and printed in June, two thousand and ten! At that time, his computer and a laptop for two months as there were in the FSB, as well as all the seized discs.Incidentally, the files recorded on CD-R disc that was it. This write-once discs. Append something new can change the old - in any way.
Invited to the room specialist with a higher technical education and experience programmer, that he explained what was happening (although, in general, any reasonable person, and so everything is clear). The specialist confirmed that data OpenOffice really mean the date and time when the file was last changed and printed. And consequently, the disk could not be written before the three hours of the day June 17, 2010.As for the date "October 29" in the file attributes, there are many ways to change it manually. That is likely to file menty.odt changed and published on June 17, then saved it, manually change the date of his establishment on 29 October, set the system date computer is the same on 29 October and recorded a CD. It seems everything is clean, but had forgotten that OpenOffice also saves the data.
Then, the specialist was asked to determine whether it is possible to what the program was recorded this CD.The specialist said that it is possible using software, analyzing service data disk. Right there on the laptop expert disc was analyzed and revealed that he recorded program Nero_Burning_ROM. To the question under what operating systems does this program, an expert said that only a family of Microsoft Windows. Consequently, the disc was recorded on a computer running MS Windows.
Meanwhile, on both computers Andrew (and this is confirmed by inspection protocols that wrote itself a consequence) is only the operating system Linux.No Windows is not there at all.
So: a disc recorded clearly on the computer, and Andrew is not until June 2010. In this corollary states that seized him during a search in April. Due to the obvious signs of fraud protection applied for summons as a witness an investigator RU FSB AS Sukharev, subject to question him about all these interesting things and to reveal its role in the emergence of such a fun drive.
The accusation, of course, was strongly opposed. Assistant Attorney Shcheglov motivated by the fact that the "drive during the investigation properly examined, signatures of witnesses is all right."Judge Garipova agreed with him and denied the petition.
Shock. The prosecutor and the judge chose to simply overlook obvious, blatant fraud, the exposure and out. Well, in the minutes of all this is recorded and the matter has to be raised.
Read out the examination of the defense. Both of Nizhny Novgorod. Firstly, avtorovedcheskoe study in which a group of scientists concludes that the alleged leaflet is foreign parts, and they may belong to the authorship of another person.Moreover, in their opinion, qualifications appeals as extremist is not within the purview of psychological and linguistic research, which crosses the previous examination, made by employees of the FSB and the Ural Center for forensic examination. Linguist or psychologist in general can not determine that there is extremism, and what is not - so consider PhD's and professors from the Lower.
Secondly, this case study , in which as a representative group of researchers claims that police officers are not social group in whole or individually, and therefore - not incite them social discord.Strictly speaking, on the basis of this examination, Andrew immediately to justify the absence of crime (incitement of hatred towards the police - not extremism). True, in this case, no more and the offense (he had this hatred and inflamed).
Based on this last examination was made one more request.Since the legislation does not specify the definition of the term "social group", as in the scientific community, there are significant differences on what constitutes a social group and who not to, we actually have uncertainty in the law. It turns out that for one and the same act may occur punishment, or may not occur - depending on to which the scientific school will hold an expert who believes the court. This naturally violates the principle of equality before the law.Therefore, the protection solicited to send a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the subject of the constitutionality of the use of the term "social group" in the "anti-extremist" laws. That is, in fact, the Constitutional Court asked to resolve conflicts in the law. Additionally, attach a certified copy of a recent decision of one of the Sverdlovsk courts, which refused to recognize extremist texts precisely on the grounds that the government and public bodies are not the social group.
The judge and the prosecutor refused.Motivation was also remarkable: "The lawsuit comes on the laws that are adopted and in force. There is no need to ask for clarification of the COP.." Defense again tried to explain that the fact of the matter is that the law has gaps and these gaps are important for the particular case. Therefore, the need to clarify at the highest judicial authority in the country. The answer was the same. That's really really, "Planet Shelezyaka. No food. Vegetation not. Inhabited by robots."
At trial, also made a defense witness and was read a few documents.So, at the very end of the meeting defense once again read the documents confirming the fact that the investigation from the outset sought to close out any information about the case, including by imposing Andrew subscription to disclose data investigation. The decision of the investigator Sukharev was declared illegal and abolished by the Central Tyumen district court May 24, 2010.
At this meeting ended. The next theater of the absurd act soon - February 21, at 9 hours and 30 minutes. There defense will continue to present its evidence.And watch the reaction of the judges Garipova. Unless, of course, at least some reaction will generally be the case.