"I did not hear the march ..."

In the court in the case of Antifacist Alexei Sutuga, an employee of the Moscow Center E was questioned - he helped to detain an obscenely expressing bully, and he suddenly turned out to be involved in the criminal case of a fight

In the court in the case of Antifacist Alexei Sutuga, an employee of the Moscow Center E was questioned - he helped to detain an obscenely expressing bully, and he suddenly turned out to be involved in the criminal case of a fight

Another meeting on the merits in the case of a fight in the Sbarro cafe on January 2, which is accused of anti -fascist Alexei Sutug, nicknamed Socrates, promised to be short. The third victim, as well as several witnesses of the prosecution, did not appear in court. Even the already interrogated professional victim Rustam Mirza ( this is the fourth business where he is the victim ), who promised to attend all the meetings, did not appear to court. Only one witness came - the operative officer of the Center for Combating Extremism in the city of Moscow Anton Navrotsky. On the night of April 5 to 6, he detained Alexei Sutug near the Rock House club.

He was questioned.

A tightened young man of about thirty, Anton Navrotsky entered the hall with a minted: allow me to enter?

And almost all the questions answered in a war clearly:

Do you know the defendant?
So for sure.
Did you detain him on April 6?
So for sure.
And on what basis?
He was obscene in a public place.

According to the witness, the defendant Alexei Sutuga is also familiar to him by scientific activity. Until 2012, Anton Navrotsky was an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and prepared a candidate dissertation for the "theme of youth extremism and representatives of various subcultures." According to him, he “read the press and studied the statistics of offenses committed by groups of persons by prior conspiracy and using objects similar to weapons”, and can immediately name several surnames. True, to the question of Judge Elena Korobchenko, what exactly was remembered to him from the press of the sutug, the operative could not really say anything.

On the merits of the events of April 6, Navrotsky explained that he came to the club that evening, since there were “preventive events along with riot police and the traffic police, the annual event”, he saw that riot police detain Alexei Sutuga:

He was stopped to verify documents, he behaved inappropriately and obscenely expressed. Riot police decided to detain him.
And what did he say and to whom?
I started scream I have not heard! I helped the riot police to deliver him to the Izmailovo Department of Internal Affairs, wrote a report, he was transferred to the ATS on duty and a protocol on administrative detention was drawn up.
Why did you write a report if you were delayed not you, but an riot police?
Together we passed the report.

It also turned out that after January 2, the center E carried out the operational support of the criminal case of the fight. And the operatives faced the task of establishing persons involved in the incident in Sbarro on January 2. ( By the way, with the victim Mirza Navrotsky was familiar earlier - Mirza was a victim in the case of bodily harm. This was the first matter of the operative - approx. Ed. ).

Did you have an order to detain a souvenue?
No, the administrative case has nothing to do with me. I carried out operational measures on behalf of the investigator - I established those involved in the offense.
Have you installed other involved?
We have photos, the surnames are still unknown.
Have you transferred this information to the investigation for a more complete investigation?
No, I was on vacation from May and only went out.
The case of Sutuga was already completed in May, ”the lawyer noted.

The witness also said that he was interviewing a witness in the case of Seva Klochkov. He was with a cafe with a girl and a friend during a fight. The investigator transmitted all the information to the investigator. However, in the case file, neither the interrogation of the witness, nor information about this.

Let us explain: in the police department Izmailovo Alexei Sutugu was delivered at night, saying that he had committed an administrative offense. However, the protocol on an administrative offense was not drawn up - it is not in the case file. Employees of the Center of E - Navrutsky and interrogated at the last meeting of Koldytsov took the sutu to the Yakimanka police department only on the morning of April 6. The accusation of complicity in a fight under Article 213 of Part 2 was presented to him only after dinner. That is, more than ten hours in custody, Alexei Sutuga was at least illegally. Lawyer Vladimir Samokhin has already filed a complaint with the prosecutor on this occasion.

Did you deliver a sutu to Yakimanka in the morning or in the afternoon?
In the morning. Or in the afternoon. I don’t remember, I slept for only four hours.
And you took pictures ...
No!
Listen to the question! You took pictures of the sutu and conveyed photos ...
No!
... Reidus editors?

They laughed in the hall.

No! I read the press.

_ (We are talking about photographs of the place of the fight and the detained by Alexei Sutuga from the case file - even before the start of the judicial investigation, they found themselves at the Ridus electronic edition. The victim of Mirza said that he handed the photo from the cafe after the fight and photo of the hammer, and did not give a photo of the stoop from the case file. They themselves came and took it). _

In connection with the contradictions, they announced the testimony given by Navrotsky during the investigation. There he said that Sutuga had not been familiar to him before, he was detained on orientation on the establishment of persons involved in the offense. The operative readily confirmed the testimony given at the investigation, and not in court.

Continuation of August 13. The third victim and witness will be delivered to court forcibly. "New" monitors the development of events.