Читать книгу The February 2015 Assassination of Boris Nemtsov and the Flawed Trial of his Alleged Killers - John B. Dunlop - Страница 5

Chapter One
A Self-Blinded Murder Investigation

“You will agree that, at such an ultra-important site [as the Kremlin], there cannot be cameras that do not work. There must be cameras of the Federal Protection Service [FSO] there, as well as of the special services [FSB]. We are not being permitted to see the faces of the true criminals….”

Artem Sarbashev, defense attorney for the accused Anzor Gubashev1

“The murder was committed at the walls of the Kremlin. This is the most protected site in Russia. There, twenty-four hours a day, high definition cameras operate, while personnel of the Federal Protection Service look out for, and watch, all suspicious people. In addition, officers of the special services [FSB] are constantly patrolling there, persons whom we cannot spot, since they move about in civilian clothing.”

Filmmaker Leonid Martynyuk2

“The key role in solving the murder of Boris Nemtsov could, and must, be played by the videotapes from the surveillance cameras on the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge, which are being scandalously concealed from the investigation, from the trial, and from society. All of these cameras…belong to the Federal Protection Service.”

Economist Andrei Illarionov3

One of the two chief leaders of the Russian political opposition (along with Aleksei Navalnyi) had been assassinated in the shadow of the Kremlin walls, but the killing itself was immediately de facto made the object of an information blackout. The Russian website Gazeta.ru was one of the first to look into this abnormal situation. On 2 March 2015, just three days after the murder, the site reported: “An incomprehensible situation was created with the surveillance cameras, of which there are more than a few in the area where the murder was committed. In the press service of the Department of Information Technologies, Gazeta.ru was informed that the Kremlin is considered a special site, and that the cameras on the territory adjacent to it have been positioned by the federal organs, and only they have access to their film.”4

This report suggested that there did exist surveillance footage of the murder at the time that it was committed, but that access to that footage was being denied. Other relevant video information was also said to be withheld: “The experts at the time pointed out that, theoretically, it would be possible to clarify the circumstances of the murder of the politician with the help of photographs taken from sputniks.” In a previous criminal case, Gazeta.ru noted, “A representative of the victims asked the court to request from the company ‘Sovzond’ and from the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences print-outs from the cameras of their satellites…. On the print-outs which were received, there were revealed the most minute details [concerning an auto accident--JBD].” Such satellite information was reportedly also being withheld from the Nemtsov murder investigation.

The Daily Telegraph observed, also on 2 March 2015: “Police investigating the murder of Boris Nemtsov have been unable to identify the killer because security cameras that could have recorded the attack had been turned off for maintenance, it has emerged. Cameras overlooking the murder scene on the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge could have provided crucial evidence including identifying the killer and the getaway vehicle, as well as further details of how the attack was planned. But Moscow’s Kommersant newspaper reported on Monday [2 March] that key cameras on the bridge…had been switched off for ‘repair work’ on the night of the killing.”5

Also on 2 March, a different explanation for the absence of videotapes was cited by the Federal Protection Service (the rough equivalent of the American Secret Service). A representative of the service, Sergei Devyatov, was quoted as having informed RIA Novosti: “The surveillance cameras are directed at the Kremlin and ensure a field of view of its internal territory. Moskvoretskii Bridge is not a zone of responsibility of the Federal Protection Service. There are no cameras of the FSO there,” he insisted.6

Devyatov then added, contradicting news reports that we have cited, that, when the murder took place, all of the FSO cameras were, in fact, working normally. Officials working for the City of Moscow, for their part, insisted: “All the cameras under the authority of [the city of] Moscow were working correctly. There was no work being conducted on them that night… ‘All of these materials are accessible by the investigative organs,’ they added.” This report suggested that critical video material existed but would be given only to the Russian investigative organs.

In its path-breaking March 2 report, which we have been discussing, Gazeta.ru emphasized that the FSO’s claims were flagrantly misleading. The website noted: “As far back as the decision of the Government of Moscow, No. 866-PP, of 29 September 2010, a list of streets was provided which are under the surveillance of the FSO. Among almost 300 sites in the capital is Point No. 154—the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge, on which Boris Nemtsov was shot.”

The upshot of these contradictory reports was that the assassination of Nemtsov had almost certainly been filmed by surveillance cameras situated on the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge and on the Kremlin walls, but this key video evidence was being intentionally withheld from the defense attorneys for the accused, from the Nemtsov family attorneys, and from the public.

In a 2 March 2015 blog, photographer Mitya Aleshkovskii offered further evidence that contradicted the claims of the FSO. Aleshkovskii wrote on Facebook: “Of course, the Federal Protection Service is lying when it states that not one video-camera filmed the moment of the murder, since they [supposedly] were all directed toward the Kremlin. I specially took this shot [photo provided on his Facebook page--JBD] on the bridge on the night of Nemtsov’s murder. I also asked other photographers to do the same thing. All four photos produced constitute one and the same shot, just taken from different distances. The camera on the Beklemishevskaya Tower [on the Kremlin wall] was aimed directly at the site of the murder. So the Federal Protection Service is lying here.”7

On 9 March 2015, the website RBK.ru reported the following concerning surveillance cameras.8 “According to the sources of RBK in the investigation brigade, there have been received high-quality [chetkie] tapes from the surveillance cameras located on the heights of the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge… The RBK correspondents counted 12 surveillance cameras aimed in different directions directly on the bridge (six on the right and six on the left side) and also four cameras in the garage of the FSO located directly under the bridge.”

Missing Surveillance Tapes Discussed at the Trial of Nemtsov’s Accused Killers

The question of the missing FSO and City of Moscow surveillance tapes was repeatedly, and, at times, angrily, referred to in the run-up to the trial of Nemtsov’s alleged killers, and, then, over the course of the nine-month long trial as well. At the third session of the trial, for example, which was held in early October of 2016, defense attorney Mark Zaverzin, who was representing the accused shooter, Zaur Dadaev, submitted a petition for footage from the GUP ‘Gormost’ [i.e., ‘city bridge’] television cameras. He then read a description of the cameras’ security system, in which eleven bridges are mentioned, including the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge, where the killing took place. Zaverzin pointed out that the official investigation had not sent a single inquiry [zapros] regarding these cameras to Gormost.” Zaverzin then requested that an inquiry be sent to “Gormost” concerning how their surveillance cameras worked, and how the information on them was preserved. “All of the defense attorneys for the accused supported him.”9

Clearly irritated by Zaverzin’s request, chief prosecutor Maria Semenenko then riposted: “The investigation has already done this, and, in volume twenty-one [of the case materials], there are tapes from surveillance cameras presented by the GUP Gormost.” Following Semenenko’s retort, presiding judge Yurii Zhitnikov expressed agreement with her statement and “declined the petition concerning the cameras from ‘Gormost’, inasmuch, as, in volume 21 [of the case materials], it is indicated that these tapes have already been requested, and that what was received does not present any interest for the investigation. ‘I have already examined these materials [the judge noted] and am, in principle, in agreement with the investigation.’” Both the prosecutor and the judge appear to have been acting deceitfully and in consort here.

Not giving up, defense attorney Kaverzin then “attempted to explain to the judge in what direction the cameras were pointed whose tapes had not been obtained by the investigation, and said that the ones that had been obtained were not from cameras pointed at the bridge…There are at least four cameras [Kaverzin emphasized] whose tapes do not exist, and they have not been examined.”

During the fourteenth session of the trial, held on 9 November 2016, Kaverzin requested further that “an answer from the GBU ‘Gormost’ be added [to the case], in which it is explained that precisely on the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge there are eight surveillance cameras. ‘We have studied the tapes from only two of them. Where are the other [six]? Why did the investigation not seize the tapes?’” he asked.10

During this same fourteenth court session, Kaverzin also pointed to another possible source of key information: “[Kaverzin] also spoke about the response from ‘Yandex’ [a well-known website, featuring panoramic street images--JBD] to the attorney’s inquiry touching upon panoramic images of the scene of the crime. At that company, they declined to make the requested materials available to the defense, saying that ‘only the competent organs’ could make such requests.” This stonewalling by Yandex mirrored that of the official criminal investigation, the prosecution, and the Moscow authorities.11

Other Withheld Materials

On 4 March 2015, just five days after the murder, the site newsru.com described visual and other technical materials that had been obtained by the investigation but had not made public.12

“The investigators of the law enforcement organs, who are heading the investigation in the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov,” newsru.com wrote, “have compiled portraits of the proposed criminals, Ren TV reports… The police were able to follow the route of the automobile in which, presumably, there were concealed the killers. After this, the law enforcement organs requested all the materials contained in the ‘Potok’ [traffic monitoring] system… and also the tapes from the surveillance cameras. Drivers who were traveling on the route had the tapes from their dashboard cameras confiscated.”

“’These measures [Russian investigators said] permitted [them] to receive several images…. ‘From the film one can say that these people [the killers] most likely are natives of the southern regions of Russia [a source of Ren TV stated].’ Let us remark that the television channel Life News [a regime-controlled firm--JBD] announced the existence of a criminalistics portrait [photo fit] of the murderer of Nemtsov….”

“According to Life News, the police are seeking a VAZ-21102 silver colored vehicle with license numbers from the North Caucasus.”

From this 4 March report, it appeared that the investigators, almost from the beginning, had been in possession of dashboard camera footage and valuable material from the “Potok” road monitoring system that permitted them to identify the killers. Only a small amount of this material was, however, subsequently made public at the trial of Nemtsov’s alleged killers.