True, elusive

Zoya Svetova

The trial in the case of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya raised a lot of questions about who could be the customer and executor of this crime. On February 19, twelve jurors unanimously justified the defendants accused of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. This verdict sounded as a verdict to the investigation, which could not collect evidence exposing the accused. The journalists who watched the process were in solidarity with the jury: the investigation and state prosecution could not or did not want to convincingly prove the guilt of the defendants. The family of the murdered journalist - her son Ilya and daughter Vera said they respect the jury verdict, but they are sure that all four accused are "involved in the murder of their mother."

“Is it proved that on October 7, 2006, at about 16 hours 07 minutes in the entrance No. 2 of house 8/12 on Lesnaya Street in the city of Moscow, the observer of the newspaper New Gazeta Politkovskaya A.S. By production of a 9 mm caliber in it, converted from a standard gas gun of 6P42-7, with a silencer of the sound of shots 5 shots in the head, chest and right thigh, as a result of which A. Politkovskaya Two blind head injuries, through the chest wound, through the soft tissues of the neck and back, a blind wound of the right thigh and Politkovskaya A.S. were caused. Did you die from the resulting damage? " - So sounded the first question for the jury. And to this only of the twenty questions he asked, the jury answered: "Yes, proven." The rest of the issues concerned the participation of the defendants in the organization and committing the murder. These crimes were accused of the former operative of the Moscow State Pedagogical University of the Moscow State University, Sergei Khadzhikurbanov and the brothers of the Makhmudov Ibrahim and Dzhabrail. The investigation believed that Khadzhikurbanov took out the weapons from the “unidentified persons”, attracted the Makhmudov brothers, who, having established the address of the Politkovskaya, followed her and helped their older brother Rustam, whom the investigation considered Killer, to carry out the planned murder. Subsequently, Rustam went abroad on someone else's passport.

Unidentified persons dissatisfied with Politkov
“Around the end of September 2006, in Moscow, S.G. Khadzhikurbanova, who was released on September 22, 2006 from the places of imprisonment, were addressed by the person not established by the investigation, dissatisfied with the critical and impressive publications and interviews of the Novaya Gazeta observer, A. Politkovskaya The officials and persons holding public positions in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with a proposal for monetary reward to organize the murder of the latter ... ” - the indictment says. The investigation went almost two years. A huge number of materials were collected, many interrogations were carried out. But for some reason, during the investigation, not a single high-ranking official of those who was dissatisfied with the “critical and exposing publications” of Politkovskaya was interrogated. 11 people were arrested. But only four turned out to be in the dock, the fourth - FSB Lieutenant Colonel Pavel Ryaguzov, whom the investigation previously considered one of the accomplices of the murder of Politkovskaya - was in court in a completely different case. He was accused of attacking the small entrepreneur Eduard Ponikov, of abuse of authority and extorting money.
Among the arrested was the younger brother of the Makhmudovs - Tamerlan, who was kept in prison for eight months, charging him almost in the murder of Politkovskaya. They released Tamerlana later: the investigation was provided with a video film that shows that on the day of the murder Tamerlan walked in Chechnya at the wedding.
The investigation was in a hurry to transfer the case to court. And the lawyers of the Politkovskaya family stated that this was unacceptable. They believed that it is impossible to consider in court a custom -made case, when there are only indirect evidence of the guilt of the defendants and there is neither a customer nor the contractor. According to the law, the investigation had the right to conduct an investigation until February 2009, but transferred it to court at the end of 2008.

"Pillars of the prosecution" did not resist
What happened? In his speech at the trial, Jabrail Makhmudov’s lawyer Murad Musaev said that the charge was based on five pillars, of which no one can withstand an impartial and detailed consideration. “Initially, when the prosecution could not prove the presence of a criminal group, this was enough to put a cross on all the charges. Moreover, it turned out to be completely unfounded by the statement about the acquisition of a pistol and its further movement. Then it turned out that the empty and the statement that Jabrail and Ibrahim Makhmudov watched Anna Politkovskaya. The prosecutors themselves began to get confused in who, when and under what circumstances, in their opinion, got the address of Anna Stepanovna. It became all the more obvious that the accusation in this case was far -fetched. So, one after another, all the supports of the prosecution considered here scattered to dust. According to the law of universal gravity, it should collapse, ”the defender urged the jury.
Indeed, in court we did not hear any evidence confirming the existence of an organized criminal group. Moreover, during the process, a version of the prosecution was debunk that the third brother of the Mahmudov Rustam was the same person in Beisbolka, who entered the Politkovskaya entrance a few seconds before her murder. But there is an assumption that the Makhmudov brothers could use "in the dark." But it is possible and something else: someone could ask the brothers to follow Politkovskaya or “light up” in the area where the crime was committed. It remains incomprehensible, did the Makhmudovs understand that they were involved in something criminal? Did they know that we were talking about murder? These questions were asked by the lawyers of the victims during the whole process. The Makhmudov brothers did not answer them.

The oddities of the trial
Another egregious oddity was discovered at the trial - the inaccuracy of the main evidence in the case. I'm talking about printouts of telephone conversations (billing), which, according to the prosecution, confirmed that the Makhmudov brothers on the day of the murder were near the crime scene. It turned out at the trial that the billing from the case file is contrary to those requested by the court at the petition of lawyers. Now in the case file - two printouts of telephone conversations for October 7, 2006. So it remained incomprehensible to what extent they are reliable, and to which they are falsified by the investigation.
But the most amazing thing happened under the curtain of the process. The prosecutors read out the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel of the FSB of Ryaguzov for the investigation. Then Ryaguzov said that in September 2006, the former head of the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya Shamil Buraev asked him to establish a woman named Anna with a surname on “Sky”. When Ryaguzov was asked why he was now refusing these testimonies, he explained: “I was the current FSB officer, and the disclosure of crimes is my duty. I did not refuse to testify and gave the testimony necessary for the investigation. ”
Did this mean that such testimonies were no longer needed in court? Recall: Shamil Buraev was released from prison "For the lack of corpus delicti." In a strange way, he was not even a witness to the court. In indictment, the prosecutors spoke about the meetings of Ryaguzov with Buraev, that in December 2006, Khadzhikurbanov and Ryaguzov had expensive cars. This, of course, did not prove the involvement of the accused in the murder of the Observer of the Novaya Gazeta. It did not prove, but threw a shadow at them. Most of all, it was amazed at the trial that the prosecutors, not proved anything on the merits of the matter, hinted at something all the time. Therefore, there was a constantly feeling that the truth is somewhere nearby. But she slipped away, like water between her fingers. And all the defendants, as if observing some kind of secret agreement, preferred to be silent. So the Makhmudov brothers could not remember where they were on October 7, 2006, exactly two hours before the murder of Politkovskaya.
What next? The prosecution will appeal the verdict in the Supreme Court. Representatives of the Investigative Committee said they would continue the investigation. From the point of view of professional duty and in order to save their reputation, they should now find the guilty in the murder of Politkovskaya. Or at least publicly declare who is still preventing them from "reaching the performer and customer."