English psychiatrist warns: our colonel is healthy. This means that he is very dangerous. Few people know that in the Budanov case there is now a foreign conclusion, and therefore really completely independent of both the Russian authorities and ...

English psychiatrist warns: our colonel is healthy. Which means it's very dangerous.

H

Few people know that in the Budanov case there is now a conclusion of a foreign, and therefore really completely independent of both the Russian authorities and Russian legal proceedings, a psychiatrist. Moreover, the expert Stewart Turner (Great Britain) is a doctor of medicine, a full member of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a specialist with unquestioned international authority, and the results of his examination, which psychiatrists of domestic forensic medicine are constantly reproached for, he cannot, by definition, manipulate. It is worth noting that Yuri Budanov for Mr. Turner is not at all the same as for us: a figure not of principle and certainly not a political one. And just one of a number of many similar patients from around the world, in respect of which he wrote opinions on the opinions of their national experts.

WITH

The conclusion of an English psychiatrist according to Budanov is a huge, more than 100-page tome. So you can't do without bills here. We publish, of course, the most important, in our opinion, selected passages from the British portrait of our colonel.

First of all, what Turner's examination consists of - and this, of course, is necessary information to understand whether it is so serious and whether the approach of the English psychiatrist differs for the better from the approaches to the same problem of our, domestic experts who carried out previous examinations.

So, here is just a listing of the chapters: “Grounds for Imprisonment”, “Instructions”, “Opinion”, “History of the Family”, “Personality before Participation in Hostilities”, “Head Injuries”, “Participation in Hostilities”, “Alcohol” , "Bagreev", "Detention and subsequent events", "Awareness of the murder", "Post-traumatic stress disorder", "Summary and possible conclusions", "Conclusion", "The significance of trauma-induced psychiatric disorders from the point of view of the criminal court", "Post-traumatic stress disorder disorder”, “Expert Witness Declaration”.

It should be noted that there is simply no similar clarity in Russian expertise.

However, the so-called APPENDIX 1 - "Education and Qualifications" is especially impressive. This is a complete list of titles and jobs that allow Dr. Turner to act as an expert. The meaning of the list is one thing: everyone who reads the text must be sure of the level of qualification. So, Dr. Turner is a consultant psychiatrist at the National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Traumatic Stress Clinic; staff researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry; works in court with both plaintiffs and defendants in cases of crimes against the person and involuntary hospitalization; Secretary of the British Mental Health and Law Association; Consulting Advisor on PTSD to the Director of the Military Psychiatry Department; Advisor to the Office of Health on psychological reactions to disasters ... And that's not all.

For comparison, let us recall how our psychiatrists sign their examinations: “The examination was carried out by a commission consisting of: chairman: doc. medical, professor T.P. Pechernikova; committee member: dr. medical, professor F.V. Kondratiev; member of the commission: Ph.D. psycho. F.S. Safuanov..."

Further, in fact, quotes from the British text.

family history

There is no impression from the material read that there is any strong genetic predisposition to the development of a psychiatric disorder.

Personality before participation in hostilities

The general conclusion of Budanov himself and those who knew him is that he was a man without much difficulty in his early development. His formation proceeded as a sociable, cheerful and successful person. The captain of the medical service Kuptsov first saw Budanov in September 1999. He describes him in harsher terms - as excitable, explosive, emotional, sometimes harsh. Frequent mood swings were inherent in him; in moments of rage, he could throw various things on the floor ... There is a reference to traits of excitability and hysteria ... exhaustion of attention, instability of thinking, suspicion, hostility, aggressiveness, increased impulsivity, etc. I think the material gives reason to believe that Budanov's personality characteristics were not unusual before the experience of participating in hostilities. His personality was apparently well-tailored for success in many organizations - including the army. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that there have been changes in his emotional state, and especially in self-control of impulsive behavior and anger ...

Head injuries

My own opinion is this: it does not seem that these injuries had a general effect on Budanov's psychological state... There is an experimental psychological study that showed no obvious impairment of cognitive activity (thinking, memory, attention, intellectual performance). He performed tasks at a high intellectual level, was able to abstract and understand conventional meanings and logical connections. The data also strongly indicate that these head injuries are unrelated to his psychological problems.

Participation in hostilities

... The experience of experiences in January 2000. It was a battle in the Argun Gorge. It must have been a fierce battle; there are indications that Budanov lost most of the officers of his regiment - not in open combat, but from sniper fire ... that Budanov expressed the idea that he would find a sniper, and there are strong reasons to believe that he wanted revenge. There is a description of abnormal behavior in the family in February 2000. He seemed nervous and depressed... He showed the family pictures of these officers and their graves. His eyes were full of tears. Family members report that they have never seen him in such a state before. There is a description of an incident where he allegedly came close to throwing his young son down from a balcony. He exhibited a persistently depressed mood... There is a link between the January 2000 battle, the death of his officers, and sniper fire from an alleged female sniper; this connection appears as the focus of his attention. Finding this female sniper does not look like something that was a random or impulsive act, but something that was his intent.

Murder Awareness

Budanov, “confident that Kungaeva E.V. took part in illegal armed formations and was connected with the death of his subordinates in January 2000, decided to kill her.” In another part of the text, it is stated that, according to his own testimony, he “did not intend to kill Kungaeva E.V. and did not think about sexual assaults”... According to Budanov's testimony, he does not remember what happened next, including his own actions. When he gradually began to regain consciousness, he saw that Kungaeva E.V. lay on the couch and did not move; where exactly and how she lay, he also does not remember. But since Kungayeva did not move, he realized that he had strangled her; he was frightened and called the BMP team to KUNG. When they entered, he said that "Kungayeva seems to have died" and "it looks like I killed her." This position is important. I tend to think that this case can be considered as a "flash-back experience" (remembering "like a flash of lightning" memories). In subsequent events, there is a description of Budanov in a very unusual mental state. This state does not fit into any framework of analysis. If he had simply killed an 18-year-old girl, perhaps even with rape, one would have to talk about a violation of the mental state. Similarly, if there were any kind of flash-back experience here, it would also lead to the thought of a mental state disorder. The evidence, however, does not seem to be of any help.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

There is evidence of PTSD. When examining his psychological state, for example, it is indicated how he described the scenes of the battle in the Argun Gorge with complete clarity, liveliness and emotional richness. With tears in his eyes, he reports that he sees the mutilated corpses of his dead comrades, their crushed bodies and heads shot by snipers. He describes seeing the major being tortured and having his genitals cut off. He described that these pictures would haunt him throughout his life and come to him in his dreams.

Summary and possible conclusions

Based on this material (I fully agree that many facts that the court has yet to determine should be included here), I got the impression that Budanov is a determined and persistent person who works perfectly within such a structure as the army. He survived several minor head injuries, but there is actually very little evidence that they resulted in serious damage to personality or function. In particular, there were no intellectual impairments seen in the tests... What seems to be very significant is the battle incident in January 2000. Based on this information, I have the impression that he developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the battle. It also appears that he developed a deliberate plan that targeted a female sniper whose photograph he kept. It seems to me that these are the two lines along which the court must pass judgment. If it is true that he developed PTSD (and there are good descriptions of flash-backs and other obsessive experiences), then the question arises: was this crime committed during the flash-back episode of dissociation? Dissociation is the disruption of the normally integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, and perception. When experiencing a “flare”, the individual finds himself as if re-experiencing the past trauma in reality. This may be associated with a significant impairment of the conscious appreciation of what is really happening at the present time. There is little material in English law relating to the possibility of PTSD leading to states of automatism. It looks like a possible, albeit unlikely, consequence of PTSD...

... Budanov is a man who developed a serious emotional disturbance after the battle experience in January 2000. This disturbance led him to a dissociative act in which he nearly threw his infant son off a balcony. This disturbance was sufficient to lead to a "flash" experience which may generally explain his inability to remember the act of homicide... It is difficult to explain how the victim could be found completely naked. In the struggle, her clothes may have been torn, but not completely removed. This circumstance implies an expedient act ... Most of the combat casualties were caused by snipers. This could be experienced as unfair rules of war. He had a photo of a sniper, he made a plan. He found a woman he believed to be a sniper and apprehended her. She was unarmed. In the disposition of the unit, she was placed not in an ordinary cell, but in a room that he used as a bedroom. It was in the middle of the night. She was found completely naked in his bed. That she was naked implies a purposeful act that allegedly included attempted rape or the rape itself. This, I believe, does not fit into the "flash" experience. Therefore, it is assumed that he acted according to a deliberate plan - for the purpose of revenge ... "

IN

the conclusion of the text of the examination of the British psychiatrist - "STATEMENT OF THE EXPERT-WITNESS". It is no longer related to Budanov, but it is related to us. To our orders and traditions, judicial and medical. In the sense that we are still completely deprived of this in domestic expertise, even though they are performed by our luminaries and academicians. So:

“I want to make the following statement:

— I understand that as an expert witness I owe the Court and must help the Court ... I understand that this debt of mine exceeds any obligations to the person from whom I received instructions or who pays me.

I have submitted to this duty.

“I certify that insofar as the facts established in my report are within my knowledge, I have stated them clearly and believe that they are true and that the opinion I have expressed represents my true and full professional opinion ...

— I addressed this conclusion to the Court.

“I have tried to deal with those sources that have been brought to my attention or that appear to be relevant to my understanding of the matter... I would be happy to clarify this conclusion in any way I need.”

So who and what do you trust more?