"I lost my naivety"

Interview with astronomer Olga Zhyakova, confirmed by Alibi Nadezhda Savchenko

Among the evidence of the innocence of Nadezhda Savchenko, to which the defense was appealed to the recently completed process, there were not only the testimonies of witnesses and the data of the mobile phone of the Ukrainian military, but also the analysis of the video of the capture of Savchenko in captivity. The shadows and light on the records indicate that she fell into the hands of the separatists even before the employees of VGTRK Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin died as a result of shelling, in the death of which hope was found guilty of the Russian court. The inconsistency between the real time of the captivity of Savchenko and the time indicated in the investigation materials was proved at once by several independent sources- Russian specialist astronomer Olga Shyakova and volunteers of the investigative team Conflict Intelligence Team . Olga Zhyakova agreed to answer several questions of Radio Liberty and said that she was afraid of persecution by Russian law enforcement agencies, despite the fact that her examination was not attached to the case file.

According to the prosecution, on this day from 11:00 to 12:00, Savchenko climbed onto the radio machine in the area of the Stukalovaya Balka and adjusted the fire of Ukrainian artillery. As a result of shelling at the intersection near the village of Metalist and Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin died. After that, she went to reconnaissance and was captured between 12:00 and 12:30. According to the defense, by the time of shelling, Savchenko was already captured, she was taken to Lugansk, where the Zarya division was located in the building of the military enlistment office, the commander of which was the current head of the LPR Igor Plotnitsky .

On March 22, the official representative of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Vladimir Markin said: “[...] at first the defense petitioned for the introduction to the criminal case of the conclusions of Ukrainian experts, then even attracted Russian experts who carried out their orders for money. However, at the hearing it turned out that the specialist of the Syyakova, who conducted the study of the videos, made explicit errors in the calculations of the probable time of their time The records that could indicate the fit for the necessary side of the defense of the result.

On December 23, 2015, at the court, Olga Zhyakova, a researcher at the study of the galaxy and variable stars of the Surnberg State Astronomical Institute of Moscow State University, confirmed the conclusions of the examination of the video recording of Savchenko’s captivity. According to the visible shadows of the shadow of Zyakov, with the help of the Gnomon method, she determined the approximate time when they were made - June 17, 2014 08:36, at 08:39 and at 09:38 in the morning of Kiev time. This corresponds to the data of billing, which recorded the phone of Nadezhda Savchenko at 10:46 already in Lugansk. According to Shiakova, the mistake in the calculations could be no more than 15 minutes in both directions.

The expertise of Zhakova was confirmed by Alibi Nadezhda Savchenko, but in the end, the arguments of the astronomer were not taken into account. At the request of the prosecutor’s office on February 15, another employee of the GAISH of Moscow State University, Valerian Sementsov , was called to the court, who repeated several times that the features of the camera lens and the angle of his inclination when shooting could affect the calculation of time. As a result, the shooting time set by Sementsov on the frames of the videos coincided with the data of the Zyadakova with an accuracy of 10 minutes. However, Sementsov emphasized that the exact analysis depends on the technical features of the camera and the conditions of shooting. “I'm talking about the tilt of the camera and distortions in the projection, so there could be anyone,” he said, answering one of the questions of Novikov’s lawyer. Ultimately, the court found the examination of Olga Zhyakova, not provoking confidence, but the doubts expressed by Semenzov entered the verdict.

Markin's statement gave rise to fears that the Investigative Committee could initiate the opening of the case against Olga Zhiakova, for example, on charges of perjury. Priyakova already managed to face problems at work - at the State Astronomical Institute. Sternberg.

On February 17, one of the lawyers of Nadezhda Savchenko, Nikolai Polozov , published on Twitter the official response of the director of the HIS of Moscow State University Anatoly Cherepashchuk to a request received from the prosecutor's office of the Rostov region. The letter states that Olga Zhyakova was absent in the workplace on December 23, 2015 (on the day of testimony in court), did not submit an application for vacation or a discharge for this date. "The leadership of the institute will be resolved about the measures of disciplinary sanction," the document said. At the same time, Cherepashchuk noted that although GAISH employees do not have the right to officially represent the institute in trials, "the right of scientists to appear to the court to testify as a private person with an astronomical education at non -working time or on the agenda of the court in working hours is not limited to management."

And here is the servant response of the employer to Voznyakova prosecutors. And so everything is in Russia. #Freesavchenko pic.twitter.com/9LKBUKIMIA

- Nikolai Polozov (@nikolai_polozov) February 17, 2016

Employees of the GISH of Moscow State University, whom Radio Liberty asked to comment on this situation, do not agree that the response of the director of the institute should be called "Similar". They pay attention to the fact that in a letter to Cherepashuk several times emphasized the right of researchers to act in court as a private person, and the only claim to Olga Zhayakova was made on the basis of a time being unformed for the time of the testimony. The interlocutor of Radio Liberty from Gaish expressed bewilderment that the lawyers of Nadezhda Savchenko did not offer Olga Zhyakova to arrange such a rally. It was after the request of the prosecutor's office that Gaish provided an official expert - Valerian Sementsov.

Olga Zhyakova agreed to answer several questions of Radio Liberty by e -mail.

- Please tell us how the lawyers of Nadezhda Savchenko came to you? How difficult is the task of determining time by image features?

- Ilya Novikov went to me through common acquaintances and asked me about the possibility of calculating the time of day in a famous place on a well -known day on the shadows. I agreed to evaluate the videos from this point of view. Actually, it was necessary to find shots where vertical objects and their shadows were visible. According to the ratio of the length of the object and its shadow, you can easily calculate the height of the sun above the horizon, and according to one of the known programs, such as Stellarium, to find the time of day. Such shots were found. Those where the influence of projection error errors was selected from them: the shadow is horizontal, and the horizon line falls in the middle of the frame.

- What motivated you to speak on the side of protection?

- My motive was very simple and naive: if a person is not to blame, he cannot be judged. At that time, I did not know the details of the case of Nadezhda Savchenko and I had no prejudices regarding her guilt or innocence in the deaths of Russian journalists. It seemed to me that any possibility of alibi matters to the court.

I want to emphasize that I did not act as an expert, but as a specialist. The expert is appointed by the court. The specialist expresses his private opinion. I spoke out not on behalf of the institute, but as a private person. The main conclusion from my work was this: it is possible to determine the time on shadows, it will be able to do this in any astronomical institution of Russia. Actually, after this it would be necessary to appoint an examination, discuss with colleagues and make a final conclusion. The court did not.

- What impression did the court session make on you? Was there a feeling that in the process there really is an honest competition between the parties to the prosecution and protection?

- My ideas about the court have changed, I lost my naivety in this matter.

- How did other participants in the process and spectators react to you? Did you feel the pressure? Did someone speak to you, were there any attempts to dissuade you from testimony?

- No, it was not. Spectators, of whom there were few, carefully looked and listened.

- Do you think now that you have determined the time correctly and with a fairly high accuracy?

- Assessment of errors of observation or experiments - this is a difficult and ambiguous matter. No one will ever tell you that the result is one hundred percent in a certain interval. And I also did not say this, but I tried to evaluate these intervals, as far as possible according to the data provided. The updated result would be to give an examination. Which was not.

- Have you talked with Valerian Sementsov before or after his testimony?

- No.

- How did you perceive the sentence? Looking back, were there any chances to influence the court decision? Do you regret that you took part in the process?

- I took the verdict with surprise. Apparently, the remnants of naivety worked. I do not regret participation.

- There were unpleasant statements regarding you, from the Investigative Committee. Has anyone from the UK have already contacted you? Do you think you are in danger?

- There are rumors here and there. The Internet community is famous for this. Wait and see.

- Astrophysicist Boris Stern invited scientists to unite and independently confirm your calculations to prove that there were no mistakes in your indications. (“I think it is necessary to work ahead of the advance and conduct a professional examination of videos on a public basis with the publication of a clear and unequivocal report,” Stern wrote on his Facebook). What do you feel about it? Could it be useful?

- I am considering this opportunity. However, I do not understand how disagreement with an assessment of observation errors can serve as a reason for the court.

Olga Zhyakova wished some issues of Radio Liberty, in particular, related to the internal affairs of GAISH MSU.