Unacceptable proof

The process in the case of the Seventh Studio should be completed before the vote on amendments to the Constitution

In the entire disgusting court in the case of the Seventh Studio, the final phase finally comes. The trial noted the three -year “anniversary”, and apparently the initiators of the process do not intend to “go to the summer”.

- Let's take a closer look at you, for you, for your own health, the prosecutors (in masks) exhorted: defenders (in masks) at a recent meeting. It seems that those who hold the threads that manage justice are given to those who are in their hands are given: “At least a carcass, at least a stuffed man” - but finish!

Voting on amendments on the nose, and this process spoils the picture of a blessed reality.

However, you can’t get anywhere: the third examination is ready. The accusation insisted on it due to deep dissatisfaction with the results of the previous one, the second. The second for the signatures of Professor Vidantas Silunas and the Director of the Chekhov MHT Marina Andreikina proved the innocence of the accused. The third is designed to somehow strengthen the charge.

It was difficult to find experts. All the unbiased observers of events understood: a political task, an examination with the ordered conclusions, which greatly narrowed the circle of candidates. Almost all of the defense proposed by the side of the defense and the court rejected: friendly with the accused, connected, noticed in sympathies. Finally, the key expert on the economy was named - Elena Bazhenova, deputy artistic director of the Moscow Art Theater named after Gorky. The expert on the aesthetic assessment of the project was Olga Koroleva (Galakhova), a theater critic, teacher GITIS.

When the accusation justified the acute need for the examination for the third time, it was about two discs copying the computer of the accountant Voikina, on which the entire “black box office” of the project was supposedly stored. Two disks were introduced. Inspired. One contained information about certain diapers and scattered notes, the other was damaged. But no one made a new copy - together they proposed "not to pay any attention to the broken disk."

The foundation of suspicions was destroyed by the suspects themselves.

But now the results of an unreasonable third examination are the main subject of the proceedings. And the main question: what is the amount of costs?

Ex-director of Gogol-Center Alexei Malobrodsky near the building of the Meshchansky district court. Photo: RIA Novosti

In her assessments, Bazhenova managed not to notice 74 events “Platforms”, including the high -profile performances “Sino”, “Metamorphoses”, “The History of the Soldier” and many other events - exhibitions, lectures, and performances. For more than a dozen performances, she decided to unify, as incubator chickens, to count one price (apparently not often in the theater hall) - 5 million rubles in 2011, according to her estimates, cost twenty -two productions. The standard was selected in 2016, when the project was long completed.

In general, the case began with the disappearance of the play “Sleep on a summer night”, and ended with the disappearance of “scumbags”. Prediction?

As for the expert Koroleva: she accused Serebrennikov of deceiving President Medvedev, saying that there was no modern art in Russia, but it was. Note that the expert opinion is signed by two surnames, the text does not have a division into economics and aesthetics; So, experts are in solidarity. We will not now recall the history of Soviet art and the ominous role of criticism in the life of the creators; Let's just say: the domestic tradition has forever unleashed self -respecting people to perform on the side of the prosecutors.

Is it too surprised that the defendants and their defenders made their petitions - to recognize the third examination unacceptable evidence.

And now - an examination of the examination conducted on the initiative of the defenders.

The defendants of the case of the Seventh Studio at the Meshchansky Court. In the foreground: Yuri Itin, the former director of the Seventh Studio, to the left of him Sofya Apfelbaum, the ex-employee of the Ministry of Culture, who was responsible for financing, on the right is Alexei Malobrodsky, the ex-director of Gogol-Center. Photo: RIA Novosti

The economic side of the project was evaluated by Professor Alexander Rubinstein, a head of the economy of art and cultural policy of the State Institute of Art Acts.

We will give only the summary of the conclusions, in the detailed way (numbers, facts and tables) proven and backed.

Fragments of examinations
The resulting part of the examination of Professor A. Rubinstein (economic side):
1. The expert’s withdrawal is not based on generally accepted scientific data; The expert’s withdrawal is not based on the current data of business entities; justification of the normative method of expenses assessment should be recognized as insolvent;
2. The use of the expert in the calculations of fundamentally inappropriate cost standards, which are also significantly underestimated in relation to the real practice of Moscow theaters, led to an erroneous assessment of cost size; The use of the expert’s calculations of the average cost of one event in 2011 cannot be recognized as permissible; A significant part of the expenses of the Platform project remained outside the expert study.
3. Throral understatement of expenses indicates the inaccuracy of the adopted by the expert to calculate the base and makes the calculation and relevant conclusions unacceptable.
Conclusions prof. D. Trubochkina (aesthetic side):
The Platform completed the tasks recorded in the agreements and made a significant contribution to achieving the main goal, proclaimed in the “foundations of state cultural policy”.
Conclusions of the study of non -profit partnership of forensic experts and appraisers of Soyuz:
1. The procedure for the appointment of a forensic examination is violated.
2. An expert study on the sixth issue was entrusted to an improper expert in the field of evaluation.
3. Content of the conclusion of experts regarding the study of the expert Bazhenova E.N. does not meet the requirements of the law.
4. When describing the content and results of research, the principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research is violated. Qualitative and quantitative data on which the expert’s withdrawal is based on Bazhenova E.N. On the sixth issue, are inaccurate.

The defense demanded to call the authors of the third, inaccurate examination to the court. The court agreed to call Bazhenov. The queen is not.

The current “expert phase” - 3D illustration of how, outside the logic, professionalism, reliability, only with a hot desire to “plant” and justify meaningless three -year expenses - the accusation is falling apart.

Following this is the debate of the parties. And the verdict.