"Forensic examinations": joint project "Dissernet" and Amicus Curiae

The community of forensic experts, researchers and lawyers of Amicus Curiae and the free network community “Dissernet” launched a joint project “Forensic Expertise”: a database of tendentious, biased or simply falsified examinations in the field of humanitarian and social sciences (philology, psychology, political science, religious studies, cultural studies) that appear in judicial affairs in judicial affairs non -violent crimes - rosvuz.dissernet.org/expertise . The number of such cases in Russia is growing, the reasons for them are more and more far -fetched, and the conclusions of “pocket” experts are increasingly contrary to the scientific approach and common sense. We believe that civil society has a strong request for such a public catalog of incorrect pseudo -scientific examinations and engaged experts.

Attention!
The project does not participate in trials: the site posts examinations on cases, the consideration of which has already completed in court.

Forensic experts: Who are they?

The loud criminal processes of recent years - the cases of Yegor Zhukov, Svetlana Prokopyeva, a blogger of the tit with extremism for his statements - intensified in Russian society as a whole and in the academic community in particular the discussion about the role of a linguistic (or psycholinguistic) examination in cases of so -called non -violent crimes: in various matters of cases excitement of hatred or enmity, extremism, religious minorities, slander, “falsification of history”, about recognition by “foreign agents”, according to the so-called LGBT propaganda, etc. An important contribution to this discussion were published by the “new newspaper” [1] Examples of complete texts of psycholinguistic examinations both from the prosecution and from the defense. And readers, even without being specialists in the field of linguistics and psychology, immediately wondered regarding the level of professionalism and non -aggression of experts from the prosecution.

So, who are these specialists, attracted by law enforcement agencies for compiling examinations on socio-humanitarian topics, primarily (psycho) linguistic examinations, and what is their role.

When a message about the alleged crime like “extremist” statements in social networks is received in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB or the prosecutor's office, the material is transmitted to linguists-experts who cooperate with the authorities on an ongoing basis, to compile a conclusion: say, there are really signs of extremism in these statements. Usually at this stage the conclusion of a specialist depends on whether the case will be initiated. It is impossible to give an accurate assessment, but, according to some sources, more than half of the statements under articles on thought -crushes receive a negative conclusion of a specialist at the stage of preliminary investigation. In practice, this means that a criminal/administrative case is not instituted, and usually the statement of the application does not even find out that he almost became a defendant in the case.

The situation radically changes after the initiation of the case: the investigator orders a more detailed linguistic (or psycholinguistic, political science, etc.) examination, and in the vast majority of cases the expert finds the signs of acts in which the case is initiated. This is simply explained: of course, the investigation and the court prefer not to cooperate with experts who tend to objectively deal with the case and give “negative” examinations.

After the end of the investigation and the transfer of the case to the court, in fact, the court always accepts the conclusions of the examination received by the investigation. The accused can order and submit an alternative to the court a specialist (showing the absence of a crime), but such a document will only soften the punishment, but is unlikely to “overdo it” the examination of the investigation.

From such law enforcement practice it follows that de facto linguists-experts, attracted by the investigation and court, replaced judges in the question of the guilt/innocence of the accused. What conclusion to the expert will give in his conclusion, such a decision of the investigation and court will be. The judge’s function in such processes is usually reduced to determining the punishment measure within the fork provided for by law (conditionally/actually, how many years of conclusion or what a fine).

This is partly due to the indictment of Russian justice as a whole (the level of justification in the courts of general jurisdiction does not exceed, according to official figures, 1% of all accused [ 2 ]). On the other hand, the peculiarity of Russian legal proceedings is that only the investigator and the court have the right to order examinations, while the lawyer can only use the “conclusions of specialists”, which, obviously, are not evidence in the eyes of the judge, equivalent examinations from the prosecution. Formally, a lawyer may also ask the court to appoint a second examination, but in most cases, such petitions are not satisfied.

Scientific basis of forensic examination

What science is behind linguistic examinations? Unfortunately, not too strict.

Firstly, the criteria for evidence in this area of ​​linguistics is weaker than in some other socio-humanitarian disciplines or, especially in the natural sciences.

Secondly, the general framework in which the expert argues are established by certain methodological manuals. With the increasing demand for linguistic examinations by the state, the number of methodologies adopted by the state is growing, and they themselves become more and more “rubber”. The problem is aggravated by the fact that some methods - for example, the FSB - are generally secret, and therefore it is impossible to find out how they are arranged, in principle, and some - such as the methodology of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - are too generalized and give the expert the maximum degree of freedom. Even despite the recent emergence of a general interdepartmental document according to the methodology of special examinations in this area (materials are not published), the very quality of application of these methods causes serious complaints of specialists.

Thirdly, in order to get the right to compose psycholinguistic examinations, it is enough to take special retraining courses, a duration of one to three months, it is not necessary to even have a degree of candidate of sciences or specialized education. In cases of non -violent crimes, experts of departmental units involved in a special examination are usually involved, in other words, we are talking about a closed pool of workers, their surnames are not advertised, they hold on to their place, and their scientific level in linguistics or psychology is not necessarily high. Moreover, sometimes we are talking about specialists who do not have a single scientific publication at all - for example, the expert N. Kryukov, the director of ANO “Center for sociocultural examinations”, well known to the Russian bodies of court and investigation, the only scientific work of which, according to the existing bibliographic catalogs, was and remains the candidate dissertation in pedagogy (this author of linguistic experts has a higher education in the specialty “mathematics” and the “mathematics” and the “mathematics” and qualifications of a teacher of mathematics). In collaboration with other experts of the ANO Center for Sociocultural Expertise, she wrote more than 50 examinations adopted by Russian courts. However, not so rarely involved by the authorities of scientific and educational institutions, including RAS, which does not necessarily indicate a high scientific quality of the examination: for example, written by employees of the Perm University of Perm in the “Putin’s Doll case” is replete with all possible mistakes, distortions and stupid things [ 3 ] (which is at least a statement that “ women and persons of late adulthood ... They have special sensitivity, susceptibility, increased excitability ” - I would see this conclusion by Emmelin Pankchorst!).

I must say that both the professional level of such an examination, that is, compliance with its Russian and international standards for conducting examinations, and the degree of its independence, that is, the well -known independence of experts and their impartiality, have already become the subject of public discussion, in particular, in the European Court of Human Rights. In the affairs of “Stanislav Dmitrievsky against Russia” [ 4 ] or “Ibragimov brothers against Russia” [ 5 ], the ECHR drew attention to serious miscalculations and obvious contradictions in the conclusions of experts, on the basis of which, in fact, serious court decisions in Russia were made. The ECHR drew attention to the fact of discussion by experts of legal issues, which is the expert’s exit beyond their scientific competence (a legal assessment is the prerogative of the court), as well as the obvious disciplinary shift in the logic of the court, preferring philologists and psychologists to religious scholars in relation to religious texts, presumably extremist content.

Example: a family enterprise of Tarasov experts

The head of the department of psycholinguistics of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yevgeny Fedorovich Tarasov, it would seem, should be difficult to suspect in a low professional level, but often the scientific level is not directly related to the experience of conducting a special examination.

So, in 2011, E.F. Tarasov spoke with his employee Alexander Petrovich Vasilevich in a psycholinguistic examination of the texts of R. Hubbard (Church of Scientology). Two philologists made a conclusion that the religious group “Church of Scientology” supposedly forms an “isolated social group”, and the entire Scientological religious philosophy was designated as an “ ideological doctrine aimed at changing the existing society that is outside the group ” (a characteristic that can be given the widest list of ideological and religious teachings) [ 6 ]. Thus, two philologists actually substantiated the need to ban several Scientological books as “extremist”. The court, unfortunately, not only did not notice such a strange state of things, but did not take into account the reviews presented by the protection.

In the same way, prosecutors were also illegible, who used the conclusion of E.F. Tarasov in the case of the director of the Ukrainian library in Moscow. In his conclusion on this case, the expert E.F. Tarasov found signs of extremism in 24 out of 25 materials he analyzed, including the Barvinok children's journal [ 7 ]. In the collection of articles “Hunger in Ukraine”, the expert E.F. Tarasov found “ special tools that may be an occasion for stimulating interethnic hatred and growth ”. In particular, with such means, the doctor of philological sciences considered extremist statements like “the Soviet Union is called the Empire,” since “ this name contains a negative assessment of the Soviet regime .” In general, evaluating the book, E.F. Tarasov concludes that " it has an anti -Soviet and anti -Russian orientation ." Gladys expert (guilds of experts on documentary and information disputes) and a member of the Amicus Curiae network Igor Zharkov in his review drew attention to numerous examples of the exit by the expert E.F. Tarasov beyond his professional competence, replacement of concepts, incorrectness in the use of special research methods and, in general, the inconsistency of the conducted research questions [ 8 ].

Nevertheless, on the basis of such an examination, the court sentenced the librarian “for extremism” for four years conditionally [ 9 ]. It is significant that the titled scientist, holding a high position at the head language institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has already come into the view of the disserternet - as a co -author of incorrect publications and an opponent in protecting “colorful” dissertations [ 10 ].

No less vivid is the expert practice of the son of E.F. Tarasov - Alexander Evgenievich Tarasov, the candidate of political sciences and the associate professor of Sechenov University in Moscow, who has been working in the field of special forensic examination for more than 10 years, along with N. Kryukova already mentioned by N. Kryukova, “Center for Sociocultural Expertise”. It is precisely this tandem that the numerous and monstrous in terms of professionalism and the bias of the examination of Jehovah's Witnesses (the organization’s activities is prohibited in the Russian Federation), the engineer for the night, who accused of humiliating the feelings of believers for the memes of “there is no God”; Their examination formed the basis of the sentence to the Bloger Sinitsa [ 11 ]. In a psychological linguistic examination, on insulting believers in the case of the Park “peat”, A.E. Tarasov designated himself as a doctor of cultural studies and candidate of psychological sciences, degrees that he does not possess [ 12 ]. Apparently, the translator and political analyst A.Ee Tarasov attributed the degree of Doctor of Culturology and Psychologist V. I. Batov, with whom together in 2012 they wrote an examination in the case of Pussy Riot (where, among other things, they expressed confidence in the presence of “ statements aimed at initiating enmity for religion” and “calls for the disarmament of power and the implementation ") [ 13 ].

This familiarity continues on the (former?) Wife of A.E. Tarasova, Zoe Mikhailovna Tarasova, a pediatrician near Moscow, who, on behalf of the same ANO Center for Sociocultural Expertise, made an expert in the case of Karelian historian Yuri Dmitriev, accused of spreading pornography [ 14 ]. The sexologist Lev Shcheglov described her examination as follows: “ From the point of view of formal and professional logic, this is almost a humorous document ” [ 15 ]. As a result, the Petrozavodsk City Court did not base the verdict on this examination and canceled the prosecution on “pornography” (which, however, did not prevent the appeal court from sending this acquittal to revise).

It is difficult to get rid of the thought of the absence of coincidences - we should talk about an amazing combination of bias and unprofessionalism in all the examinations of this family known to us.

Study of examinations in Russia. Amicus curiae

In Russia, a public discussion of examinations arose episodically and earlier, mainly due to the activity of expert groups, such as Gladys, human rights NPOs-the Center for Protection of Media Rights1, IAC “owl-centr” 1, as well as an active interest in this topic of a number of media outlets, primarily “Novaya Gazeta”. The focus was the most odious and frankly anti-scientific examinations for political affairs, such as a sensational examination in the case of a rally in Novorossiysk in 2009 with a poster “Freedom is not given, they take it” [ 16 ], in which the expert came to the conclusion that this slogan “ serves the interests of those who would like to shake the socio-political system of modern Russia ...”. It must be said that even the frankly unscientific and biased text of the political science, based on the “Alena Dalles plan” (a well -known fake about the need for “moral undermining” of the USSR, attributed to the CIA director Alena Dulles) was accepted by the court, and on the basis of it was charged with respect to the organizers of the rally - by the way, recently received an assessment of the ECHR. No less scandalous were the conclusions of Moscow experts, already mentioned by N. Kryukova and V. Batov, for example, recognizing extremism to the slogan “Kill the Slave” [ 17 ]. Unfortunately, in all these cases, the court accepted obviously falsified scientific conclusions as genuine, despite the obvious signs of non -personality and bias that are obvious even for a non -professional.

On the initiative of the Center for Independent Sociological Research (St. Petersburg) 1, the Amicus Curiae community was created, uniting researchers, experts, lawyers and civil activists interested in improving the quality of special examination, approving modern scientific standards and criteria for evaluating it. For more than three years, the community collects materials and publishes reviews devoted to various dubious examinations and direct falsifications of scientific knowledge from real law enforcement practice.

The study of examinations showed that in Russian judicial practice, the examination, even obviously doubtful-with the answer to legal issues, with the absence of any methodology, with ignoring the elementary norms of logic and language (for example, school mistakes in grammar in the conclusions of professional philologists), does not occur with a serious assessment of the court, and its authors, with the only exclusion (private definition in relation to the odious expert of S. Fedyaev in Krasnodar [ 18 ]), do not receive the proper assessment of both the scientific level of their texts and the degree of their bias.

New Dissernet project

A painstaking study of the practice of a special forensic examination led to the understanding that a dubious forensic examination is very close in the genre to other dubious or directly falsified texts. Это соображение, высказанное в докладе «Фальсификация судебной экспертизы в гуманитарных науках» [ 19 ] на Комиссии РАН по противодействию фальсификации научных исследований 24 мая 2019 года, привело к появлению совместного проекта «Диссернета» и Amicus Curiae, посвященного судебной экспертизе.

Возможно, вы скажете: всё это прекрасно, но при чем тут «Диссернет», который занимается плагиатом в научных работах? Такое представление о деятельности сетевого сообщества по-прежнему преобладает; между тем, «Диссернет» давно уже перерос собственные первоначальные рамки поиска плагиата в диссертациях больших начальников и перешел к полномасштабному изучению ландшафта российской псевдонауки.

Судебная экспертиза — это специфический, но все-таки научный текст с присущими ему чертами: полнотой исследования, критикой источника, корректностью использованной методики и т. д. Экспертиза, в которой нарушены научные нормы, представляет собой такую же фальсификацию научного труда, как списанная диссертация или публикация. Авторы фальшивых судебных экспертиз — такой же объект исследования «Диссернета», как авторы списанных диссертаций или участники фальшивых защит. Более того, «эксперты», пишущие заказную ахинею, выдаваемую за научный труд, рассматриваются «Диссернетом» так же, как и члены диссоветов, обслуживающие фабрики фальшивых диссертаций или принимающие на совете абсурдные позорные решения [ 20 ], или как авторы «лжекниг»-монографий, изданных задним числом для оправдания заимствований в диссертации [ 21 ]. То есть лжеэксперты — неотъемлемая часть ландшафта российской псевдонауки, природу которой исследует «Диссернет».

Как и в других проектах «Диссернета», читатели смогут сами сделать вывод относительно научной состоятельности и независимости опубликованных экспертиз: каждая экспертиза сопровождается рецензией на нее, написанной ученым, которому доверяют эксперты «Диссернета» и Amicus Curiae, и содержащей оценку основных положений исследуемого текста. Читатель может ознакомиться как с полными текстами экспертизы и рецензии, так и с подборкой цитат, подтверждающих найденные рецензентом нарушения научных норм в экспертизе.

На момент написания этого текста сайт проекта содержит 15 «пилотных» экспертиз (с критическими рецензиями на них).

Удивительным образом, при всей своей значимости для выводов следствия и решения суда авторы экспертиз обычно остаются инкогнито. Эта традиция не называть имена экспертов в публичном пространстве имеет две причины. Во-первых, журналисты, освещающие то или иное дело, обычно не осознают важности обнародования конкретной фамилии, хотя их репортажи могут даже включать в себя цитаты из экспертиз. Во-вторых, сами фигуранты дела и участники процесса, хотя и имеют доступ к экспертизам, обычно озабочены совсем другими проблемами и задачами. А еще реже широкой публике удается не только узнать имя эксперта, но и увидеть непосредственно текст экспертизы.

Восполнить этот пробел в публичном знании и вывести из тени авторов некорректных судебных экспертиз и призван новый проект. Результатом должно стать формирование открытой базы лжеэкспертов, пишущих заказные псевдонаучные тексты под видом экспертной работы. Кроме того, цель проекта — инициировать в научном сообществе максимально широкое обсуждение таких экспертиз, что должно способствовать повышению их научного уровня и развитию состязательной судебной системы в России, — задача, которая в равной мере важна как для гражданского общества, так и для государственных и правоохранительных органов.

В заключение заметим, что на юридические последствия вроде дисквалификации лжеэкспертов пока рассчитывать не приходится, только на репутационные. Впрочем, когда «Диссернет» начинал свою деятельность, никто не ожидал, что через семь лет работы сотни плагиаторов будут лишены ученой степени [ 22 ].

Дмитрий Дубровский, Андрей Заякин, Алексей Касьян, Лариса Мелихова, Андрей Ростовцев

1. «Основным идеалом является смена власти в России». Что эксперт ФСБ посчитал экстремизмом в видеоблоге Егора Жукова. Новая газета, 11 сентября 2019 года. novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/09/11/81925-osnovnym-idealom-yavlyaetsya-smena-vlasti-v-rossii
   Лингвистический процесс. Экспертиза по делу Егора Жукова — пример того, что бывает, когда наука теряет независимость. Новая газета, 5 декабря 2019 года. novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/12/05/83013-lingvisticheskiy-protsess
   Тумакова И. Признаки оправдания терроризма. Новая газета, 3 июля 2020 года. novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/07/03/86135-prizraki-opravdaniya-terrorizma
   Дубровский Д. Синица в руках закона. Новая газета, 9 сентября 2019 года. novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/09/09/81904-sinitsa-v-rukah-zakona
2. Верховный суд подвел итоги работы за 2019 год. pravo.ru/story/218428/
3. zvzda.ru/articles/9acd921c1d9b
4. mmdc.ru/praktika_evropejskogo_suda/praktika_po_st10_evropejskoj_konvencii/delo-dmitrievskogo-protiv-rossii-dmitriyevskiy-v-russia/
5. www.sova-center.ru/misuse/news/counteraction/2018/08/d39932/
6. sudact.ru/regular/doc/UBVCRsohTiX/
7. www.ixtc.org/2016/05/v-knigah-ukrainskoy-biblioteki-ekspertiza-nashla-vozbuzhdenie-nenavisti-i-antisovetchinu/
8. rusexpert.ru/public/expertizy-pdf/12.3RecJarkovvsTarasov2016.pdf
9. tass.ru/proisshestviya/4312962
10. rosvuz.dissernet.org/person/106792
11. zona.media/article/2019/10/03/titmouse-experts
12. anocce.ru/exp_list.html
13. zona.media/article/2019/10/03/titmouse-experts
14. hrdco.org/focus/spravka-o-dele-yuriya-dmitrieva/
15. 7×7-journal.ru/articles/2017/06/22/eto-pochti-yumoristicheskij-dokument-professor-lev-sheglov-dal-ocenku-ekspertize-lezhashej-v-osnove-dela-karelskogo-istorika-dmitrieva
16. hro.org/node/6268 .
17. mmdc.ru/news-div/digest/news209/
18. Суд запретил следственному органу привлекать к лингвистическим экспертизам некомпетентных экспертов // Адвокатская газета, 10 сентября 2018. advgazeta.ru/novosti/sud-zapretil-sledstvennomu-organu-privlekat-k-lingvisticheskim-ekspertizam-nekompetentnykh-ekspertov/
19. www.amicus-curiae.info/analytics/1148
20. rosvuz.dissernet.org/scases
21. kpfran.ru/2019/06/18/lzheexpertizy
22. www.dissernet.org/acat_chronicle/

---

1 Радио «Свобода», Центр защиты прав СМИ, ИАЦ «Сова-центр» и Центр независимых социологических исследований включены Минюстом в список организаций, осуществляющих функцию иностранного агента.