 |
 |
|
|
But in one of the charges laid against Pichugin, not even the motive is identified. According to the prosecution, Pichugin and the unidentified senior figures in Yukos were so concerned at Kolesov's career advancement that they even ordered him killed. Also, according to the prosecution, Pichugin, only "suspecting that Kostina was acting in a way detrimental to Yukos interests", decided to have her killed as well. What evidence was brought for this? Absolutely none. Yet this does not even worry the prosecution. The address for the prosecution does not even explain what Kolesov's promotions amounted to and why they so worried Pichugin and the senior company officials unidentified by the investigation. Or why they wanted Kolesov killed and what they stood to gain from it. Kolesov himself pointed the court to the absurdity of this motive. It is apparent from his testimony that he and Pichugin were not acquainted. They worked in different companies and their professional paths did not cross. It is also apparent from Kashayev's address that he suggested that the jury disregard Kolesov's words in this respect, on the grounds that he was afraid to tell the court the truth. But of what or who Kolesov was afraid, and why Kashayev thought he was, remained unexplained. And on top of that, for this particular episode not only was the motive not established but the people who carried out the crime were not identified either. The motive behind the attack on Kostina is also open to question. Even had Pichugin and anyone from the unidentified Yukos officials been displeased with her behaviour and sought her death, the prosecution should at least have presented evidence in support of this. What exactly had she been doing and how did this damage the company? What would they have gained from her murder? But the prosecution's address does not answer these questions. Nor does the prosecutor deal with the contradictions in the testimony of Kostina herself regarding the possible reasons behind the blast outside her mother's flat. Immediately after it, she said she did not know who could have done it. Somewhat later, she said that it could be connected to a dispute with officials at the mayor's office. Only after that, in spring 2003, having learnt from investigators of Pichugin's possible complicity in the explosion, did she change her story again - without any evidence to support this assertion. Apart from that, the Tambov regional court had already convicted Korovnikov and other persons for this incident, and they had mentioned nothing of Pichugin's involvement. It was stated in the verdict that no intent to kill Kostina was apparent since by virtue of the place, nature and time, the explosion could not have done harm. The verdict and sentence entered into force and there is no report of their repeal. During the preliminary investigation and in court, Pichugin consistently denied all the accusations and charges against him, asserting that he had no reason whatsoever to attempt to kill Kolesov, Kostina and the Gorins. Until then Kostina and Kolesov were unknown to him, and he was on friendly terms with the Gorins.
|
« в начало
 |
