|
In the beginning, back in Tambov, the gang said they had wanted to use a smoke grenade, and that when they that failed they resorted to a hastily-assembled improvised device. But the residents in the block of flats who could confirm that were not in court.
The same thing happened when the Kolesov episode was examined. If we follow the actual sequence of events, he was simply robbed and beaten up. The unidentified assailants escaped. The prosecution had to prove that Pichugin's orders had been not to beat up Kolesov but to kill him. According to the pre-trial investigation, the presence of passers-by prevented the crime from being committed in full. In other words, had they not been there, Kolesov would be dead. But these passers-by had been questioned long ago and had provided nothing of use to the prosecution. One reported that although he was in the area at the relevant time, he had seen nothing. Another said that he was walking the dog and had also noticed nothing of interest.
The defence asked to cross-examine these witnesses. If they had seen nothing, then how could they have hindered Kolesov's assailants from killing him? The judge turned down this seemingly innocuous request.
The trial was full of such instances. Perhaps that's why the pedantic Loktionov irked the judge. And during the retrial, the defence faced a united front by all three prosecutors - the two from the Procuracy General plus the judge herself.
An interesting observation: during the time between the first and second trials, the witnesses were carefully coached. They already knew how to answer the defence's questions in a way helpful to the prosecution. At the first trial, the bloodstained killer Korovnikov performed like a ham actor. He shouted at Kostina: "Olga my dear, please forgive me!". And he begged the guards: "Bring me water, I feel faint!" And in doing so he ruined the impression - the jury realised he was a clown, although his criminal background had been hushed up.
Korovnikov had decided for himself to put on a show for the prosecution, while constantly lapsing into prison slang. This could only have infuriated his handlers. He tried to develop the story about Kostina and to give an impression of trustworthiness. He asked her: "Weren't you wearing gold earrings at the time? I remember them!" Kostina was not ready for a question like that, it was not in the script. Not knowing what to do, she nodded and replied "Yes, I was." The defence jumped on this immediately: according to the prosecution, before the trial Korovnikov had only seen Kostina in a black-and-white photograph. They had said so themselves. All became clear.
At the second trial, Korovnikov spoke in short, clipped phrases. He did not grandstand or embellish. He said nothing that could give cause to doubt his story. The same happened with the other members of the gang.
And this time the judge helped Korovnikov with his aura of respectability. As soon as the defence asked him to recall his previous testimony, he refused: "I won't answer that." Olikhver immediately ruled that the defence could not disclose what he had said at the first trial.
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 | >>
| 
