The process of cognition

So the process ends. It ends as it looked like eight months, if you look from the side. It ends under the unstable cries of "Freedom!" Several dozen caring votes outside the windows that drowned out the performances of the guys in the last word . It was impossible to close the windows in the tiny paying of the Zamoskvoretsky court, otherwise the murderer came. There, eight hours a day, lawyers rested their knees against each other (I generally sat on a chair), and 10-15 relatives were barely placed from the audience. It ends under the monotonous, languid-pointed voice of Sergey Krivov, who once again trying to tell the truth about Bolotnaya. The truth that no one was needed, except for these several dozens below, and even then not the very truth, but only to replenish the energy that this endless process sucked from them: they could not miss a day, afraid to leave the guys alone.

Judge Nikishin "went to the deliberative room." I do not want to peep after her, guess with whom and what she will “confer” there. This is not my game, I did not establish the rules in it and never played them. My business was fighting for the justification of the innocent. I myself chose it for my own personal reasons, and not out of a sense of duty. On this path, I gained a lot - friends, invaluable experience, satisfaction from the work done, pride of luck and skills tolerate defeats. In terms of personal growth, I am quite pleased with this year.

And now about the results of the story itself. They are much less pleasant. It is necessary to admit to yourself that almost everyone has passed us over almost two years (from May 6, 2012). What did we all get in the process?

Politicians, the so -called protest leaders

In the best case, I saw those at the process once or twice. It is difficult to call the self -wary blizzard that Boris Nemtsov was carried out of the testimony. However, no, he competently played the defense of Masha Baronova. Apparently, there were no other "socially close ones" in the cage for him. Otherwise, he habitually repeated about the notorious “bottleneck” (and that they gave this one hundred times a rubbed image, are the rulers of minds not able to find their own words to explain what happened there?). It’s a shame about the rest of the pearls. Who was still in the Constitutional Court of the opposition that year there? Come on, I don’t remember - and it doesn’t matter! Unless Daniil Konstantinov recently said very strong words from his cage. Of the "vip" witnesses, Gennady Gudkov, who has long been customary for "rolling the balloon," was the most useful and substantial for business.

The only “fundamental oppositionists” who seriously invested in defense of the “Bolotnikov” was Mikhail Kasyanov, who spent a lot of money to help the public commission and used personal ties to convey this story to the whole world. But like -minded people in his country, accusing him of self -party, “merged” him immediately. Of the "not the most implacable" thanks to Vladimir Ryzhkov. I went to court, went to Putin, went back and forth. You can see different paths, he saw such. Thank you! Thanks to Maria Alekhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Ilya Farber, who included in defense of the "Bolotniks" immediately after his own release

Society

Nine tenths of him calmly (or with remorse, which does not really bother me) went to Tina. On February 2, 8 thousand came on the last march in defense of the Bolotnikov on February 2, at best a tenth of those enthusiastic masses that “went to storm the Kremlin” (according to the investigation) at Bolotnaya and other rallies in 2011 and 2012. As for the trial, there it was generally possible to find only a group of support, which had stunned from mental and physical fatigue, with a number of no more than three dozen. These heroic people got the lion's share of all ridicule and reproaches from all sides. Yes, probably, the guys would be more pleasant to see in the hall of their friends, classmates and colleagues. Probably, they came. But basically I saw the same faces. Different, by the way. There were people unbalanced there. And there was a quiet, shy Marina Melikyan, in the 68th young employee of Moscow State University, who voted against the entry of troops into Czechoslovakia. During the holidays, I met a couple of university teachers from Arkhangelsk. There was an eccentric, bouncing on the move Peter Lutikov, who more than once helped me with voice records - he wrote all the meetings. There was Maria Arkhipova, the soul and motor of the committee on May 6, managing to freeze at the promotion simultaneously, communicate with artistic establishment in search of support and write smart texts. Different people were, and they did not think about whether they were “demrine” or not, they just went where no one else went. The same "establishment" also did not really think when, having finally decided to speak out in defense of the "swamps" (this, apparently, was considered a feat in itself), mercilessly confused the names and facts regarding their "clients". "

But there is one riddle for me. After all, it was somehow possible to “Rosuznik” and the Committee on May 6, a year and a half to collect money for programs, to help relatives, and most importantly, for lawyers. Who are all these donors? Or did this money also have given only we - a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand of those who stubbornly went to the most non -flow rallies, all our concerts, auctions and other promotions? Or, nevertheless, the people are inclined to solve problems with money, but to go out and show themselves - dumb or ashamed? In any case, in the end with the funds it became harder. The society does not pull a large political process, it does not even pull financially.

Journalists

Which, with such a rise, illuminated "Abai" and "white walks." Which almost all suddenly then began for "freedom, equality, fraternity" and even, I am not afraid to say, a little "for the revolution."

They regularly wrote about the “Swamp business”: “New Gazeta”, Gazeta.ru, “Faces”, “Russian Planet”, Kasparov.ru. Gave info "Lenta". Of the others - a little more often "Kommersant". NTV also worked for fame - "rarely, but aptly." Periodically fussed around the courtroom of the Life -Lifnyus operators. I practically did not see journalists of other publications for eight months of court. But the point is not even that.

I was stunned by those few colleagues whom I previously knew as experts in judicial political stories. Which I always thought: their people, chop the chip. Someone at all evaporated. But worse, when people, it would seem, understanding what was happening, began to perceive the process as a "application to themselves." Sub the scandals from a finger. To allow himself the position "This lawyer (or the accused, or witness) is unsympathetic to me, which means that he is bad and rightly for him!" They wrote, yes. But it would be better for them to shut up. Of course, they said, the "swamps" were not to blame and did not storm the Kremlin. But if the “process was not turned into a laughing stock” (“behaved somehow otherwise”, “they were quieter”, “they were louder”, “more often washed”, “sneezed less often”, “asked other questions to witnesses”, “gave other petitions,” etc.), then we would like much more here. I understand when a small provincial girl sent with NTV, pokes a finger at the uniform of the prosecutor, asking: "Is this a policeman?" On TV, they are not able to do otherwise today. But the rest are smart?

Gentlemen colleagues: These are not the defendants, lawyers, witnesses or support group devalued the process. This is you! And I consider this a betrayal, and nothing else.

Lawyers

Everything is more complicated here. In the process there were brilliant pros. And not shiny, but simple. But the problem was not in qualification. More than once I read about 99% of convictions in our courts. I don’t know how reliable this figure is. But perhaps this is what forms the consciousness of the lawyer workshop? In any case, in most stories that I have heard during the process from lawyers, all kinds of lawlessness and ways to fight (or to get along - according to circumstances) are described. The shortest quote: "I had one very successful business - only 14 years by sentence for a double murder in the group ... True, the person was generally innocent." This should somehow influence consciousness. I'm not talking about healthy conformism as a way to live in a real world. For the Russian world is nevertheless noticeably irreta. It seemed to me that the main idea in the Russian lawyer doctrine is to reduce the term. Because they will put it anyway. And in our business it did not work. And because this period was not defined and was not at all determined by laws. And thanks to a clearly "non -standard" client. In this situation, the defense simply did not really know what to do.

Be that as it may, a strange paradox was observed in the lawyer team. Those who were originally ready to "butt with an oak" were not always wealthy in terms of elementary professional skills. And sophisticated "legalists" sometimes showed (in my amateurish look) insufficient immersion in the details of the case, its capabilities. I do not want to blame anyone: everyone who at least moved a finger for this matter deserves gratitude. And even more so, who gave him almost a year of life (and some and almost two). But I had noticed before: it was accepted that a person himself ran after his lawyer, slow him down, offer decisions, asked questions. And for some reason I thought that it should be the other way around ...

Finally, in comparison with the real "team of the defendants," the collection of lawyers began to slightly resemble the team only to the very end of the process. Maybe because there was nowhere to retreat?

But everyone actually could bring something of their own into the process. For example, a thousand times mentioned lawyer Krivov Vyacheslav Makarov. He sometimes caused a desire to crack him with a stool. Everyone who was not too lazy accused him of individualism and unwillingness to listen to anyone. But it was Makarov who repeatedly showed a true team spirit: he supported someone else's witness in time when attacking him prosecutors or judges, instantly reacted to the situation sharp and unpleasant to protect the situation, and rushed into battle. He was generally constantly "in the subject." A person is often paradoxical, if only to be able to see it and use it!

But it was pleasant to watch how the usual raid of professional cynicism gradually evaporated, to see how people "taken".

The most important

Among all the chaos, the shining diamond will remain in memory of those whom the tongue does not turn to call the defendants. I do not get tired of being amazed, as the investigation managed to choose so for the demonstration punishment of such different, but equally morally healthy, sincere and clear. That's who did not show doubts either his own rightness or the need to hold together. I don’t know who infected anyone with this cohesion, but their families did not disappoint their families. As a result, the guys, their parents and wives formed some kind of core, next to which it was simply ashamed to be cowardly or despair. But we cowardly and despair. I write these lines from Kyiv, from here it is especially clear: we handed over our prisoners ...

True and crooked

I can’t imagine how Sergey Krivov, sitting in prison, managed to get out more from the case than I was not freedom. He studied him in a detailed way, understanding the documents and in fact that the acts that were happening on Bolotnaya, and in the methods of falsification of the case by investigators, and in the testimony of false witnesses . Unfortunately, he could not systematize this knowledge and he could not put the legal basis under it. With the position of most lawyers, this also did not come in any way. What is understandable: it became clear very quickly that the authorities would not work to turn this process into a political show. Nobody is ready for this. In addition, to confidently discuss the truth, it is necessary to clearly see your own mistakes, complexes and error. What we also do not know how. Therefore, the whole “truth” was fragmented in the “folk consciousness” into disparate mythologems such as the search for “provocateurs” or a dispute about whether ten sitting on the asphalt can interfere with the passage of the 30,000th crowd. It was necessary to all this an ominous image of a “bloody tyrant”, guilty of all our sins, and inside was a subconscious sensation of this sin and guilt. With such thoughts, the world cannot be changed - and the truth turns into a farce. We did not have enough idealism, no matter how much it was despised today. Not blinding idealism, making you a slave of one idea. And idealism as faith in truth and law.

And yet - the main result

For me personally. You can fight alone. If there are ten people around, much easier and more effective. When a thousand, calmness and confidence appear. But no matter how many of us, everything is in our hands. There is no impossible. Even in such a seemingly fatal situation.