Liberation movement

The Chertanovsky court of the capital sentenced the famous nationalist, leader of the Moscow Defense League Daniil Konstantinov, to three years in colony. Judge Julia Chernikova found him guilty of hooliganism, and not the murder, as the charge insisted. The judge came to the conclusion that Daniil Konstantinov on December 3, 2011 near the metro station “Academician Yangel Street” Konstantinov spat on a jacket of 23-year-old Alexei Temnikov, hit him several times and threatened him with a knife. Who killed Temnikov, namely, Konstantinov served in jail for 2.5 years, remained unknown. The nationalist fell under an amnesty declared by the State Duma to the 20th anniversary of the Constitution, and was released in the courtroom

Re -qualify

Three hours before the announcement, the territory around the court was occupied by police buses, and inside the building on each floor there were employees of riot police with the protective helmets of Jetta. Those who want to support the defendant - only about 100 people - were hardly distributed into two halls, in one of which a broadcast was organized.

The first words of the judge became a shock for those present: there was no question of murder. The charge was re -qualified from part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code for part 1 of Article 213 - hooliganism with the use of weapons. The testimony confirming Alibi Konstantinov, the presiding shallow, since they are refuted by the "confident testimony of the witness Sofronov." The court also did not consider the application for pursuit for political reasons winging. At the same time, the judge noted that none of the witnesses saw that it was Konstantinov that inflicted two blows with a knife.

After the meeting, the shocked father of Konstantinov tried to explain to the press that the court could not condemn an ​​innocent person, and the lawyers called the incident “an internal court compromise”. Konstantinov himself left the building in half an hour. He thanked everyone for his support and said that only this should be fought for his own. He left the territory of the Chertanovsky court, accompanied by the defendant of the “swamp business” Yaroslav Belousov, who in September was released from the colony.

Value witness

The version of the prosecution was again built on the testimony of one person - a friend of the murdered Alexei Sofronov. From his story it followed that on the evening of December 3, four guys approached him and Temnikov. One of them spat on Temnikov’s jacket, a brawl ensued. Sofronov beat three people, the fourth took Temnikov aside.

Amazing metamorphoses took place with the testimony of the key witness: over time, he began to memorize all new details of what happened. In the first hours after the fight, Sofronov described the alleged killer as Tolstoy and shortly cut. Then he began to say that the offender was shaking. On February 4, 2012, Sofronov was shown a photograph of Konstantinov, and on March 21, the witness stated that it was he who inflicted a mortal blow. The next day, Konstantinov was detained by employees of the Center for Combating Extremism and Management “M” of the FSB of Russia, and confrontation has turned into a formality.

In the summer, a two -dimensional drawing of a knife appeared in the case. According to Sofronov, in the hands of one of the accomplices of Tolstoy, he noticed a blade. However, after some time, the witness said that the knife was precisely with Konstantinov. The operatives did not find the gun itself. Finally, by July, Sofronov already confidently said that the killer had a nose with potatoes, chubby lips and a shaved head.

State Protection on Strelma

Sofronov after the fight asked for state protection, writing in a statement that he received threats from Konstantinov. At the same time, he committed nine thefts during this time, received two conditional terms and, according to the lawyers of the leader of the Moscow Defense League, interacted tightly with law enforcement agencies. A week after the interrogation in court, on November 29, 2013, the Vachsky District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region changed Sofronov on a real sentence.

During the interrogation in the second process, the lawyers asked the key witness, the operatives guarded or helped to steal or helped, but Sofronov could not respond to this. The rest of his testimony also did not differ in intelligibility: according to him, he did not see a spit, but “heard”; I could not make out how to strike a stab; Where exactly the criminal took out the weapon, it was not possible to remember either. Sofronov could not and explain what exactly he portrayed, drawing a knife, and how exactly a blade and a handle looked.

Attempts to find out how Sofronov made up a photobot, were unsuccessful: the witness recalled the portrait of the criminal “At Real”. In addition, at that moment he was afraid that he would be hanged by the murder of Temnikov. When the presiding judge read out the interrogation protocol and asked to explain why the witness described in different ways how a knife was stabbed, Sofronov replied that if there was a necessity, he could again change his testimony.

- Why are you sure that Temnikova killed Konstantinov? Could this be done by the same person who wounded you? - asked lawyer Denis Zatsepin.

“I suggested,” Sofronov was short.

Alibi

At the site of Konstantinov’s murder, not one of the witnesses, including the only eyewitness of the fight of pensioner Nikolai Salnikov, who asked alms at the entrance to the subway that day. These testimonies, the lawyers are sure, confirm Alibi Konstantinov, whom the defenders spoke about the beginning of the investigation and which the investigator in particularly important cases of the UK Andrei Altynnikov considered it unconfirmed, guided by how he himself said in court, "his personal beliefs."

According to the defense, on December 3, 2012, Daniil Konstantinov celebrated his mother’s birthday with his relatives and friends on the other end of the city. At about six in the evening, he, along with his wife Marina Ionova, bought in the M-Video store on Mira Avenue, Skorovarku, which he planned to be presented as a gift. About half past seven Daniil Konstantinov and his wife, his parents Ilya Konstantinovich and Galina Alekseevna and their friends, the wife of Oldenburg-Svintsov, arrived at the Daikon restaurant on Mira Avenue. They spent more than ten thousand rubles and left the institution already after midnight. During this time, Konstantinov did not leave anywhere. That is why it is not in the video recordings of the metro cameras, and the movement of its machine was not recorded by the “stream” system. And that is why experts did not find traces of saliva on Temnikov’s jacket, although, according to lawyer Dmitry Dinze, such traces are preserved for a very long time. The Billings of Konstantinov’s phone do not confirm that he was next to the metro station “Academician Youngel Street”, since the defendant simply did not call anyone that evening. Lawyers indicate that he used the mobile Internet, but due to the production of the investigation, it was not possible to get printouts.

The questioned director of the restaurant Veronika Mareeva claimed that by December 1 the institution had to be decorated for the New Year, but there were no decorations in the photographs that the Konstantinovs and their friends took. Lawyers explain this by the fact that Mareeva went for jewelry only on the 3rd, so they could not appear in a restaurant earlier than on the night of December 4.

The prosecution, refuting Alibi, noted that the amount that Konstantinov allegedly spent that evening did not coincide with the figure indicated in the check. However, lawyers object to this: there is no check in the case file, there is only a copy of the cash tape of the internal accounting system R-Keeper, which is formed separately for the bar and for the kitchen. Apparently, only the order of drinks came into business.

The lawyers and the argument of the investigation were criticized that Konstantinov had a hatred of Temnikov, since he was a punk. At the time of the murder, Temnikov did not have obvious signs of this subculture: piercing, hair of different colors, a Iroquois, tattoos, or at least appropriate inscriptions on clothes, says lawyer Dinze. Even Temnikov’s father could not confirm that his son was Panku.

Versions of the persecution

Constantin himself explains the criminal prosecution by political reasons. In December 2011, he was detained after a rally in pure ponds. A person who introduced himself as an employee of the Center for Combating Extremism Markin visited the police department Konstantinov. According to the nationalist, Ashnik tried to persuade him to cooperate, and in response to the refusal he promised a long prison term. Konstantinov is sure that they wanted to recruit him because he began to pose a threat to the authorities: the young leader of the nationalist movement called for fighting not so much with migrants as with United Russia.

Ilya Konstantinov’s father, a politician known in the 1990s, puts forward a different version: his son was allegedly offered to lead the assault on the State Duma, which was scheduled for December 10, 2011, and after refusing, they hung a murder on him. Konstantinov Sr. believes that the authorities subsequently realized a similar scenario by arranging a provocation on May 6, 2012 on Bolotnaya Square.

Lawyers confirm that Konstantinov was offered to organize a march to the Duma, but they note that they did not set their goal to formally justify which of the two versions - a refusal to cooperate or refusal to storm parliament - played a big role in criminal prosecution. Initially, the defenders are sure, the operatives began to engage in the development of Konstantinov after October 1, 2011, when the Moscow Defense League held a march against ethnic crime. Then law enforcement agencies became interested in people who were part of the security group and monitored the order for shares. At one of the court sessions, Konstantinov himself said that in March, immediately after the detention, he was shown photographs of the “security guards”, they offered to testify and then let him go. By the way, Sofronov identified one of the people who were on the “march against ethnoprestance” from a photograph as a man who hit him with a knife by the metro “Academician Yangel Street”. Perhaps they say lawyers, Konstantinov and his entourage wanted to present as an extremist community. And the murder was supposed to be a “cherry on the cake” to consolidate the image of villains. However, for unknown reasons, it was not possible to form an evidence base under the 282nd article.