|
The defence then asked this witness with total recall if she had told Kostina, her close friend, that she had fetched her personal file for Nevzlin and men from the security service. But that she could not remember. Nor could Kostina, but she later stated that she had not been told. So Rozhkova had remembered an unknown man for the rest of her life but forgotten to tip off her friend.
It's important to note that Rozhkova and the witnesses for the defence were cross-examined separately and out of sight of each other. As soon as Fedorova and Isangildina left the stand, the prosecution asked to call Rozhkova again. Her second examination would be about matters hitherto unexamined.
The defence team was amazed when the prosecution again asked Rozhkova if she was working in Nevzlin's office in March 1997. She replied in the affirmative and was allowed to go in peace. The prosecution merely wanted to show that their witness had the last word. The defence then asked if their witnesses could be heard again, but the judge said no.
But the process of judicial inquiry allows witnesses to be confronted. Defence lawyer Kaganer immediately asked Rozhkova to return the following day, to speak face-to-face to her former colleagues and describe to them how she fetched Kostina's file for Nevzlin. The reaction from Judge Olikhver was instantaneous: "Witness Rozhkova, that is an improper question and you must not answer. Your examination is complete, you may go."
The defence team was then ordered not to pursue further their witnesses' testimony on this episode. And the next morning Fedorova, the main witness to expose Rozhkova's untruths, was summoned by the procuracy for questioning.
These are the questions they put to her. 1. How had she become involved in the trial? 2. Who put her up to such testimony? 3. Had anyone groomed her to testify, had she been prompted what to say? 4. If so, then by whom? Had she been put under pressure? Fedorova, who was well over 60 years old, was grilled for more than six hours. But she gave her questioners no joy.
Although by now retired, Fedorova had retained her office worker's skills. She was a responsible lady with a clear memory. She again recalled all the circumstances, and in her honesty she stuck to her story. In particular, she again affirmed Rozhkova's departure from the secretariat on a date incompatible with the prosecution's version of events.
If this is not intimidation of a witness, then what is?
The case handlers had not squared the details of the Kostina episode with other witnesses either. Or rather they had, but sloppily. The result was that during various cross-examinations, different witnesses said different things when pressed to be more specific. Peshkun the middleman said that he had given Korovnikov the hitman a 3 x 4 cm photo of Kostina, like the one in her file. Unaware of that, Korovnikov testified that he received from Peshkun an A4 photocopy. But the court decided to ignore this.
But really, these are just minor details! The main thing is that something was handed over and she was nearly killed. A photo of the victim mysteriously grew into a photocopied page. Perhaps the witnesses were simply lying? They were being held in different cells, perhaps there was no time to square the finer points of the story. This is where the court should discharge its function of inquiring after the truth. But that, it seems, is a function not for our times. However, all this testimony is on the record. Let it be a cautionary tale for future generations.
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 | >>
| 
