Bushenkova case: Alibi was found in the materials hidden by the investigation

Anarchist Dmitry Buchenkov, the defendant of the swamp case, at the interrogation in court specified the data on the investigation, saying that he was not in Moscow not only on the morning of May 6, 2012, but the whole day. Such information is transmitted by the correspondent of "faces" from the hall of the Zamoskvoretsky district court of the capital.

Earlier, the media reported with reference to the testimony of Buchenkov himself that in the evening of May 6, 2012 he returned to Moscow from Nizhny Novgorod, where he went to his parents. However, in reality, the activist confused the dates. In court, he explained that he visited his parents monthly and after May 6 he visited Nizhny Novgorod dozens of times, so the exact date of the May 2012 visit was not deposited in his memory.

But later, getting acquainted at the end of the investigation with the case file, Buchenkov discovered the data of operational -search activities - the testimony of the Patrol road system, which recorded the movement of its car. These data, which were present in the case from the first days of the investigation, unequivocally testify that he went to Nizhny Novgorod on the 5th, and returned to Moscow only on the 8th.

Having studied the testimony of the Patrol system, Buchenkov managed to restore in detail the events of May 5-8 and set them out in detail in court. The activist noted that there is a witness ready to give testimony, who would confirm that he met him in Nizhny Novgorod on the 7th.

Buchenkov also said that he was the organizer of the agreed procession of the anarchists, which took place on May 1 - a few days before the rally on Bolotnaya. It was to this march, the accused emphasized, and he prepared a banner, which was further re-used on the 6th.

The action on Bolotnaya, continued the activist, he decided to ignore, because he believed that the anarchists had already expressed their position. Then he warned the other leader of the anarchist, Alexei Gaskarov (in 2013-2016 he left for a period of three and a half years of the general regime in the swamp business), which would not go to Bolotnaya. The corresponding email was preserved both in Buchenkov and Gaskarov and will be represented by the court, the accused noted.

The defendant also said that he was aware of the persecution in the swamp business and for more than three years after the rally, he repeatedly traveled abroad, so he could have hidden if he had believed that he had reason to fear persecution.

Finally, Buchenkov accused the investigator of the Investigative Committee of Alexander Uranov, who fabricated his business, in an effort to conceal significant materials from him. At acquaintance with the case, Uranov invited the activist to watch only 18 hours of the video, saying that the remaining more than 100 hours did not have a direct relationship to him. However, the activist watched all the videos and found a visor on one of them (the nickname of an unknown from Bolotnaya, whom the TFR passes away as BUCHENKOV) without a hood and in full growth. These personnel especially convincingly testify that the visor and buchuchenkov are different faces. “I showed this to Uranov, but he only turned away from me to the window,” the defendant remarked.

Buchenkov appeared at the hearing on Tuesday, shaving his beard, which he had recently. So he decided to more clearly demonstrate his discrepancy with the visor.

Usually, during the processes of the defendants, they are interrogated at the end of the judicial investigation. However, Buchenkov and his protection at previous hearing - the first on the merits of the case - petitioned for the interrogation of the accused at the very beginning of the process. Judge Larisa Semenova satisfied the petition.

In the process, the prosecutor replaced - instead of the assistant of the Zamoskvoretsky inter -district prosecutor Ekaterina Apukhtina, the prosecution is now supported by the senior assistant to the prosecutor named Sevryugin. Earlier, she participated in the process of Bolotnik Dmitry Ishevsky , as well as in court on the choice of preventive measuresto activist Ildar Dadin . Sevryugin did not support the investigator’s request to send Dadin in jail, and the activist was placed under house arrest.

Lawyers Svetlana Sidorkina and Ilya Novikov petitioned for admission to the hearing of the accused Anna Koroleva. It takes place in the case as a witness to the prosecution, but in fact she cannot report any data, since she met the activist only in 2014. The prosecutor did not object to Sevryugin, but Judge Semenova rejected the request.

The famous anti -fascist Alexei Sutug, who was freed from the Siberian colony at the beginning of the month at the beginning of the month, had more than three years of term on charges of hooliganism and beatings, came to the meeting on Tuesday.

The next court session will be held on May 24.

The 38-year-old associate professor of political science Buchenkov is charged with the standard part 1 of Article 318 for swamp business (the use of non-hazardous violence to a representative of the authorities) and part 2 of Article 212 of the Criminal Code (participation in riots). According to the prosecution, on May 6, 2012, Bushenkov attacked the police in Bolotnaya Square and turned street toilets. In total, six episodes have been imputed - this is more than that of other defendants. The victims in the case are seven: six police officers and an employee of the Ecuniversal company.

Buchenkov was detained on December 2, 2015 and the next day was sent to the Moscow pre-trial detention center “Vodnik”. There he stayed for 15 months. Only on March 2, 2017, the Politsek was transferred from a pre-trial detention center under house arrest .

At the same time, the lawyer at the very beginning of 2016, by order of lawyer Sidorkina, conducted a portrait examination , confirmed that Buchenkov and the visor were different persons. However, the TFR stubbornly ignored both the results of this study and other evidence of the activist’s non -involvement in the case.