"Dissime cannot be pro -Russian"

The second day of the trial of Oleg Orlov: Star Wars and an examination with typos

In the Golovinsky court of Moscow, hearings on the case of human rights activist Oleg Orlov, who were accused of repeated discrediting the army, continued. Today, witnesses of the prosecution Vadim Mironenko and Sergey Bokhonko, both of the Russian Veterans organization, were questioned.

Its executive director Mironenko - a gray -haired man in red polo and tone shoes - appeared with a report, which began to reproduce without waiting for questions. In short, his considerations came down to the fact that "the subjective opinion of Orlov, broadcast by the media in the West and within the Russian Federation, is an information weapon aimed at destroying the constitutional system." According to Mironenko, the fact that Orlov was attracted only for “discrediting” - a shortage of the investigation. With the human rights activist, the witness was not familiar and did not write applications for him. But he was called for interrogation in the UK, and not one, but with a comrade - a witness Sergei Bokhonko (the coordinator of the “veterans of Russia” Bokhonko appeared in the court in camouflage, albeit without insignia). At first, in court, Mironenko and the testimony gave, albeit from the first person, but in the plural: "We are witnesses." Obviously, the consent reigns between the comrades: their testimony, given at the preliminary investigation, coincided by 97% - the defense stated this. The probability of such a coincidence is one billion. This phenomenon of Mironenko simply explained: allegedly he gave the testimony not as an individual and a citizen, but as a representative of the organization, and before that she allegedly developed a certain consolidated opinion, which was voiced.

True, witness Bokhonko, who was interrogated after, did not say anything about this and said that he could not explain the miracle of coincidence.

But if Mironenko claimed that he did not write any statements, then Bokhonko insisted that the statement for Orlov was - supposedly such “veterans of Russia” was sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office (therefore, they, they say, were called as witnesses).

True, there were no traces of this statement in the public field and on the organization’s website. They wrote “Veterans” on the “Memorial”*itself, accusing him of rehabilitation of Nazism for the names of the Germans who collaborated with the Germans in the occupied territories, who were on the list of repressed.

They wrote, but about what - they remember and set it out well well: from the testimony of Mironenko, the state prosecutor Svetlana Kildisheva, for example, concluded that the “veterans” found “several employees related to Nazism” in the NGO itself, and the society is supposedly “forbidden the supreme court” (in fact - only liquidated).

“Veterans” generally write a lot of sly: on Shenderovich **, Shnurov, Oximiron **, the Rain channel **, “Muz-TV”, and their leader Ildar Rezyapov even fell into our rating of prominent scammers. Now he, however, is on his. Like Witness Bokhonko, who declared that he took part in it from February 28. Bokhonko is a veteran of hostilities in the North Caucasus, in various sources you can find information about his service in riot police and in the FSIN special forces. There is also evidence that his full namesake and also an employee of law enforcement agencies received 5 years conditionally for beating a man on the street. To the question about the criminal record, Bokhonko refused to answer in the process, promising to "tell on the sidelines." But he left. He could not really answer the question of protection, which is why the society wrote a statement (if it wrote), and for hundreds of humiliating Russian military personnel and military leaders, in recent months, it did not react from circles close to Wagner.

Mironenko insisted that the Memorial* has been busy with subversive work since the 80s, which is why the USSR broke up.

The fact that society was registered in mid -1991, and the union ended in December, does not bother it.

The audience is periodically distracted by the bailiff - his phone with Rington Murka calls every now and then. At the last meeting, his phone was broadcast by the voice of the cuckoo.

The main event of the day is the interrogation of Natalia Kryukova, one of the authors of the examination of the article by Oleg Orlov, which underlies the prosecution.

Kryukova and her co -author Tarasov are also the authors of the conclusion in the case of the liquidation of the Memorial*, and the Agnes Haykar case (an unsuccessful attempt to prohibit the book about repressions) and many others - often by order of the FSB. Kryukova - teacher of mathematics, Tarasov - translator. Their Peru owns the examination of religious studies and even sexology. Now - linguistic. According to the documents, it took only six hours. In this text, the authors assure that Orlov "occupies an anti -Russian human rights position." On the basis of which such a conclusion was made, the expert explained as follows:

“It is stated about him that this is a network of modern dissidents of Russia. The dissident cannot be pro -Russian. The dissident movement has always been anti -state. ”

Lawyer Katerina Tertukhina is interested in what scientific work in linguistics was published by Kryukova. She could not remember exactly, but noticed that the work was large, written on the instructions of the Ministry of Culture and that "there was everything about everything - about it is the most." The expert in the testimony refers to a certain methodology for examinations for discredit cases, but does not indicate it in the examination itself. He replies that she took the definition of discredit from open sources. And finally explains that he refers to the "Star Wars" series, but forced to: "The terminology of the bright and dark side comes from the Ukrainian figure, but I did not want to describe all this." Not everyone understood the last thesis, but the judge Kostryukova said: “Everything is clear to me with the“ star wars ”, and Kildishva’s prosecutor added:“ And the dark side is known to everyone. ”

The expert interrogation by lawyer Tertukhina looked like this:

- What is a paralinguistic context that you write about in your examination?

- It is written there, read. Why will I explain? In this case, the answer is not needed.

The head of the “New” Dmitry Muratov, who acts as a defender in the process, finding in the text of the conclusion of the word that, according to the text of the defendant, he will change the system existing in the Russian Federation, which will make it a “source of European security”, asked a rhetorical question:

- Then what is the judge for Orlov?

Kryukova, confused in the text, eventually admitted that words were missed in him and in fact had in mind the “threat of security”. But on the next page, the thesis that, according to Orlov, Russia will become a source of security of European countries is repeated again. Kryukova refers to a technical error in copy -paste.

Muratov talks about the dishonesty of experts. Kryukova objects that she does not talk about the good faith of Novaya Gazeta.

Muratov is interested in numerous borrowings without indicating and the source, which are full of the text of the examination. There are many of them, here is one example:

“The processing process consists of a series of successive or time parallel stages, each of which performs specific information transformation (coding, highlighting individual signs, filtering, recognition, comprehension, development of a solution, forming a response, etc.). The main characteristics of the stages: throughput (processing speed), information capacity, type of coding, duration of the transformation cycle. The ultimate goal-the construction of a private or generalized model of the studied mental process ”-is listed on the 9th page of the document. The same can be found in the Big Psychological Dictionary edited by Meshcheryakov and Zinchenko.

- Is this your statement? - asks the defense.

“This is the installation that the authors rely on,” the expert reacts.

Note that there are no quotes and references to authorship.

“There is no need to refer here,” Kryukova throws.

The 10th village of the document indicates:

“Intrapersonal communication is equal to a conversation with himself, a person dialigates his internal“ monologue ”, talking with his inner voice, Alter Ego, conscience, etc.; Interpersonal communication, as a rule, is associated with the ideal model of communication and is largely primary, two communicants participate in it (but there are options for an observer included by an observer and outsider, communication against the background of present witnesses, in a crowd, in a restaurant, etc.). ” Exactly the same paragraph can be easily found in the lecture “Introduction to Linguistics”, written by L.V. Kalashnikova.

- A general approach is given for understanding the common positions on which the authors stand.

- We gave your text to a group of professors, linguists ...

“There is enough money,” Kryukova snaps.

- So, there are more than 30 spelling and punctuation errors. Should a linguist write correctly in Russian?

- I will not answer.

* Entered the Russian authorities in the register of “foreign agents” and liquidated. ** entered the Russian authorities in the register of “foreign agents”.