|
All the members of the secretariat contradicted Rozhkova. It transpired that two defence witnesses, including Isangildina, had been hired to replace the departing Rozhkova and took on her workload. All these former members of the office said the same thing - to obtain a personal file, you had to put in a special request to the personnel department in the neighbouring building.
Rozhkova could not have done that, because all Nevzlin's instructions were carried out by his secretary. And according to company procedures, only his secretary could request a personal file for him. The assistant would run the errand to next door. This procedure was in no way different from that in any state institution or major company. And Rozhkova also testified that she could not remember any other instance of Nevzlin asking for someone's personal file.
Her story was that Nevzlin, in a single and strange case, asked her to get the file, although it was Fedorova's job to do that. It's not clear who Rozhkova was to Nevzlin, or why he would step out of procedure like this.
But the main thing is that at the trial Rozhkova continued to claim that she was working in the office in March 1997. This is where a fateful role is played by the numerous searches carried out at Yukos, when files were carried away by the truckload. All the personnel department's papers were among those seized.
The only thing that the defence could obtain were scans of employment histories, left behind in one of the computers. But anyone who works in personnel or knows about these things will tell you that these do not record movements within the same department (or directorate or whatever) at the same rank. Only changes in rank are recorded. And Rozhkova had moved to a neighbouring subdepartment, to do the same job.
An internal record is kept of such movements, of course. But all these records were taken away by investigators and vanished into thin air. All the papers disappeared, including those for 1997! So it's impossible to prove or deny on paper that Rozhkova was working in Nevzlin's office in March of that year. Unless something can be recovered from the debris of the Procuracy General.
The only thing left was to rely on the witnesses, and they all happily pointed out that at the time in question Rozhkova was no longer with them and could not have carried out any of their duties. All of these witnesses had employment history books showing that at the time they were working to Nevzlin.
Rozhkova told the same story to the second jury, but this time she said that only Pichugin had been in Nevzlin's office. This was the first time she had seen him, and she never encountered him again. How could she know that this unfamiliar man sitting in Nevzlin's office in March 1997 was Pichugin? Try to remember any person that you bumped into once only, five years ago, when you entered a room and heard their name for the first time.
Immediately afterwards, Fedorova and Isangildina, who had been working to Nevzlin from 1996, showed their documentary evidence to the jury and described how they took over from Rozhkova when she left.
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 | >>
| 
