Суд мести

But Olikhver failed to do that. The decision had already been taken on high, and that was good enough for her. Loyalty, as I said before, is the outstanding feature in Natalya Olikhver. That's why she got the trial.

A managed court in an era of managed democracy

Having appointed the right judge, the organisers of the attack on Yukos could happily press ahead. With the resources at their disposal, they could have convicted Mother Theresa. As we studied these resources, we met a number of serving judges and a retired one by the name of Pashin, who has researched the way that courts are controlled by extrajudicial bodies and individuals. To an overwhelming extent, their information overlaps.

This system was created by the very people who are supposed to protect us from official abuses. I cannot name our sources in the judiciary, for fear of harm to their careers and health. This is not the UK. Below is what we found out.

The following instances highlight specific methods available to the prosecution and security services during a trial.

1. During the trial, the prosecution kept repeating to the jury that Pichugin might also be guilty of other crimes. He might be charged with two attempts on the life of a businessman called Rybkin and with organising the killing of the manager of a food shop on Pokrovka Street in Moscow. The defence objected that this had nothing to do with the trial, and that these cases were still under investigation.

Olikhver put all these irrelevancies on the record. This amounted to an attempt to influence the jury. What opinion could they form of Pichugin from the prosecution's words? Only at the end, when the jury were leaving to consider their verdict, did Olikhver suddenly say in passing: you remember what the prosecution said about charges for Pichugin? Well, you should not take account of that during your deliberations. But what does "not take account of" mean? Opinions about events or facts can be insinuated into the subconscious. Did the jurors think better or worse of Pichugin after such stories? And why did the judge allow them at all, if they could influence the jury?

2. The usual way of influencing a jury is through the so-called case support officer. This is a new phenomenon in our judicial practice, but one that in a short time has acquired an ominous nature and extent. The term requires some explanation.

In its most innocuous form, the case support officer merely records everything that happens in court. Sometimes it is someone from the procuracy, sometimes a member of the investigation team. Every day, he draws up a report on the conduct of those involved in the case. Including the judge. These reports serve as the basis for conclusions to be drawn and measures taken.

Officially, the purpose is to assist the court in summoning witnesses, ensuring security in the courtroom and producing items of evidence from storage. And that's all. That's what it says in the Interior Ministry's in-house procedures. It does not entail what emerged at Pichugin's trial. For example, round-the-clock surveillance of important witnesses and of the jurors.

Начало | << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | >>

« в начало

Создание сайта
Алгософт