The case of Ilya Romanov. Court chronicle: day fifth

In the criminal case of the Nizhny Novgorod anarchist Ilya Romanov, accused of preparing for a terrorist act, attempted public calls for terrorist activities, illegal production, storage, transportation and wearing of ammunition, the interrogation of witnesses continues.

On June 22, the visiting collegium of the Moscow District Military Court questioned as a witness to Sergey Ershov, who worked as a bartender in a cafe near the place where an incident occurred to trigger a pyrotechnic device in the hands of anarchist on the night of October 26, 2013. He explained to the court that late at night a man with a bloodied hand and face, to whom Ershov called an ambulance came to the cafe. The witness assumed that the injured man could tell him that he had injured due to the fact that an explosive device worked in his hands, as he spoke of a preliminary investigation, but at the hearing he could not remember such a conversation. Ershov himself did not hear the explosion, but everyone around him talked about this, so he concluded that the person who came to suffer from the explosion. Upon the arrival of the police, Ershov, as a witness, participated in the examination of the scene, where he saw only blood and scattered fragments of human skin. In addition, he did not notice anything particularly remarkable - neither funnels from the explosion, nor damaged trees or cars. There was nothing suspicious in the bag that the injured man left on the porch of the cafe.

Further at the hearing, the police major Angelica Balakina-Kochetkova, senior inquiry officer of the inquiry department of the police department No. 5 in Nizhny Novgorod, was interrogated. She was the terrible interrogator of the operational-investigation group in the criminal case under Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “illegal storage, transportation or wearing of ammunition” in relation to Ilya Romanov before transferring to the investigator of the Federal Penitentiary Service. It should be noted that from the testimony of this witness the circumstances of the case is very difficult to establish, because on most of the issues the parties to the protection of her answers were as follows: “I don’t remember, I don’t know, I can’t explain.”

Ilya Romanov believes that her testimony should be critical, because the witness is unlikely to have a personal hostility towards him, but there is an official interest in prove that the investigation was conducted without violations, but the violation was present, and significant.

Prior to the interrogation, the lawyer of the defendant Evgeny Gubin filed a request for the announcement of the searches protocols on October 26, 2013 at the place of residence of Ilya Romanov and in a rented apartment, where he lived shortly before the incident. The prosecutor Alexei Ezersky also considered that they should be announced. It turns out that the most important materials in the case were compiled in such a way that during the preliminary investigation the lawyer could not decipher them, and during the previous court hearing, neither the prosecutor nor the court managed to. And the witness herself read her notes with great difficulty.

In accordance with the protocol of the search for Romanov’s place of residence, a laptop, “extremist content”, “extremist orientation” literature, notebooks with personal notes of anarchist, sheets with extremities in Spanish, as well as two some jars, in one of which was a white precipitate, identified by an explosive explosion as an explosive as an explosive, were seized there. substance. No more explosives and explosive devices were found either in the apartment or in the barn near the house.

In accordance with the protocol of the search for a rented apartment, the “extremist content” literature was also taken there, as well as a computer’s system unit, a knife with a blade of 7 centimeters long, matches and matchboxes, food soda, rubber glue, transparent tape, a bag with aluminum powder, glycergan, acetone, cotton wool, plastic tubes for drinking drinks, a bottle of electrolyte, a bubble with brown liquid, a can of white powder, a bottle of gray liquid, a bubble with a pipe attached to it and white liquid inside. This is a white substance and was recognized as the head of the explosive technology group of the FSB Kirsanov explosives, and a bubble with a tube and a bottle-explosive devices. At the same time, it is worth noting that the dog did not give the reaction when exploring the premises to find explosives there. In addition, fragments of 53 “bitten” nails were allegedly discovered and seized, which, according to investigators, planned to use as amazing elements for an explosive device.

During the interrogation, the interrogator found out that during both searches there was a certain specialist Orlov, who was not entered into the protocols and did not sign there, and the witness herself could not explain in which area this Orlova was a specialist. Balakina-Kochetkova said that she simply forgot to enter her both times to the protocol. But she took a receipt with Orlova about her duties during the search and criminal liability, but this responsibility could not explain to the court about which.

Further, it turned out that the names of books, for example, the word “panic” in one of their names, testified about the extremist literature. The witness said that she could determine whether an extremist book is without even reading it.

After that, the witness said that throughout the search in a rented apartment, neither she nor the witnessed premises left. But when the protocol was announced, the FSB investigator found out that both she and the witnesses left the apartment at some point, while one employee of the FSB Kirsanov remained there and stayed for more than 30 minutes. No one saw that he had done there all this time.

Also, the police major could not remember who and where exactly found the “snack” nails. She could not explain why the nails were absent in the photo table in the case file, although the photography of all the objects seized during the search was carried out. Why she did not photograph them during inspection in the department, she also did not remember. It is worth noting that the report of the search did not reflect how these nails were packaged, the signature of witnesses on them was also absent. Among other things, the witness could not remember which part of the nails was discovered - pins or hats, although before that she claimed that she was counting them, while they had no heads.

The witness could not recall whether or not the computer worked, on which the document was subsequently discovered with a threat to blow up the leaders of the city and the region if they do not stop cutting the parks, the creation of which is attributed to Romanov. How the specified system unit was packaged and sealed, she also did not remember.

The witness also brought the memory and then when the side of the defense asked why a re -resolution was issued to search in a rented apartment. When asked if she had lost the initial resolution by chance, the witness confidently replied that she had not lost anything. She also could not remember who the computer expert Turenko was and why he provided her with two examinations of the study of the seized system unit, but definitely not because of the loss of the initial examination. However, the testimony of a computer expert Turenko says that the second resolution was issued precisely because of the loss of the first.

Balakina-Kochetkova and security from police officers did not remember, which she put up in the hospital so that Ilya Romanov could not hide. Although the fact of the presence of police officers was confirmed in the previous hearing, witness Sergei Budnikov, a traumatologist of the hospital, where anarchist was hospitalized. In addition, the presence of police officers was recorded by journalists.

Regarding the export of Ilya Romanov from the pre -trial detention center to the Center for Combating Extremism by its employees, the witness explained that maybe they were exporting, and she issued a resolution on the transfer, but what the CPE officers were the need for interrogation there and could not recall.

Further, Balakina-Kochetkova was already openly lied-she stated that she was interrogated by Ilya Romanova, Irina Nikolaevna, in her office, explaining her all her rights. Irina Nikolaevna herself at the hearing already showed that she was interrogated in the kitchen, immediately after the search, very hastily, without explaining anything in full confusion. As a result, Balakina-Kochenkova had to confirm that the interrogation was carried out in the kitchen.

After that, the witness said that during a search in a rented apartment, she examined all three rooms of the room. Although the realtor Oleg Chizhevsky, interrogated at the hearing as a witness, explained to the court that the defendant could be in only one room, because the other two were locked, and when he visited the apartment after the police officers, the rooms also remained locked. The explanation of the lawyer of the defendant on this occasion, Balakina-Kochetkova said that those two rooms were opened, and in one of them she found a bubble with the tube attached to him.

In completing everything, to the question of the defendant, what was directed for research: a bubble with a tube, which was seized during a search, or a certain bottle with a tube, as indicated in the documents, the witness also could not explain. “Maybe a technical error?” She addressed a question to an indefinite circle of faces.