[translation from Russian]
There appeared the site dedicated to the cause of Konovalov and Kovalev site http://kazni.net/ . As we know, there are still about two months to do everything possible to save the guys. All this information is on the site [all in Russian]. The site that is very important, especially as the accumulation of information on the case of K&K, from which evident that the case was fabricated. That of particular interest is the page: http://kazni.net/voprosy_bez_otveta/ Therefore, we request everybody:
- Who has the ability, time, desire, strength - please feel free to spread information about this site and more about the issues that remain unanswered
- If there is a possibility of publishing in some European media - it would be great!
- We are now thinking about how it could be published, it is problematic issues such as a single-issue newspaper to give to people. Circulation is needed - at least 1,000 copies. To extend in Minsk, it is very important that people keep talking about the K&K. Lukashenko is afraid to take responsibility, when everybody the talk and the talking increase. And the time is still in our favor. And all that we can do is stretch the time before the execution as far as possible. If you have an opportunity to promptly publish such a reversal in Lithuanian, English, or any other language - it would be great.
4. We would welcome any assistance in informing and giving the publicity to the fabricated case of K&K.
A week before the sentencing on the site of Belgazeta was announced on-line conference with the chief state prosecutor Mr. Aleksei Stuk on the case of Konovalov & Kovalev. However, hundreds of questions asked to the prosecutor have remained unanswered. Due to some reasons beyond his control Aleksei Stuk could not participate in this online conferences. We give here the most frequently encountered and verifiable.
SILENCE OF KONOVALOV AND MOTIVE
1) Why Konovalov said nothing during the whole court?
2) In 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, which took place behind closed doors and sentenced to life imprisonment of two former security officers Ignatovich B., and M. Malik. They were accused of kidnapping journalist Dmitry Zavadsky , his possible murder and the murder of five other people. One of the convicts - Valery Ignatovich was silent the whole process (lay on the bench). Do not you find similarities in the behavior of silent Konovalov and Ignatovich?
3) Sometimes, the defendants refused to testify at the beginning of the judicial investigation, wanting first to hear the other participants in the process, and only then, according to their testimony, answer questions from the court. Are you aware of the processes in which the defendants, as Konovalov, remained silent throughout the trial, not even using the last word? For what reason did this happen? How do you explain the silence of Konovalov?
4) The investigation and trial in the court did not find the main thing: the motive of the crime! Anyone who would destabilize the situation, can not sit in silence, with downcast eyes to the threat of execution… exception one is ill or insane, or has another motive. In this context: how far seen other versions of the explosion?
5) Tell me, how long it took to Konovalov during the investigation, to memorize the word destabilization?
6) On what basis the defendant's alleged acts were qualified of Konovalov’s prosecution under terrorism? This article provides a motive - the desire to become famous or to hate people in general, or is it a very specific effect on the target environment?
Do not you think that if the real purpose of the defendant's desire to become famous as a terrorist, the qualification of the acts imputed to him as a mass murder of hooliganism – why then such a strange silence in the court? If really Konovalov planned explosion in the subway, if really Konovalov performed the explosion in the subway, and if Konovalov really had intended to go down in history as a terrorist, and if indeed Konovalov dreams about suicide, then, excuse me, but he won because, in this If indeed achieve its goals. And take with in addition while another 16 people and maimed hundreds of lives and health, and has raised serious fears of millions of citizens. Who do you think the actual the winner in these events, including a judicial process?
7) If Konovalov’ attack was motivated on destabilization of the situation in the country due to the fact that he did not like the policy of the President, why do you, Mr. Stuk did not asked: Why to kill innocent people, why do not to attack the President, is it not more logical?
8) At a press conference with the participation of vice-president of the Investigative Committee of the Mr. Swed, when asked about the motives of Konovalov, suddenly announced that it is useless to look for a clear motive for the deformed person, he did it in so perverted way to get moral satisfaction, and nothing more. You, Mr. Stuk did not say a word to Mr. Swed, then agreed with this formulation. Acknowledging, in effect, that they had made improper use of criminal law, when accused Konovalov under Article 289 of the Criminal Code. If Konovalov motivated a desire to obtain moral satisfaction in perverse way, it acts in which he was charged, should be classified as murder of two or more persons in dangerous method of hooliganism. In what manner can appeal clearly erroneous charge if Konovalov was deprived of his right to appeal the verdict, contrary to Article 115 of the Constitution?
9) Please explain the reasons why a consequence of the shallow version of accomplices (who helped to make or cause an explosive device) and the customer? After a person has no motive, when he speaks of purpose - quotes from the Criminal Code, and to refuse to answer specific questions. Do you want to shoot the man, but you do not care for what he did and as a consequence, in future we can prevent this?
10) What prompted you? What is the motivation? To amuse and see how people will die? How blood will whip? As our president does, I would love to get a full, reasoned, logical answer!
11) Infact Konovalov could himself to answer all questions and dispel the doubts. But it is the formal recognition of his guilt and he does not. Look at the terrorist Breivik. Konovalov even then incorrectly assembled models of bombs, he said I'm guilty and in jail even added that he wanted to destabilize, without explaining whether he understands the meaning of the word. I am sure that Konovalov said nothing because of simple reason - he does not knows the answers at least to half of these questions and if he would began to testify on some cribs and legends, in the end, no one doubts there would be evident that he was lying. Mr. Attorney, how do you feel about that, even lawyers make almost unique action, deny guilt when Konovalov also seems to be confession, the testimony did not, but just the bare recognition and the nod of the head count? Both and this criminal case and such a nod under the regime of Lukashenka breathe a very terrible, bloody gloomy mist!
HOW THEY DID CAME TO KONOVALOV
12) How did you calculate the location of Konovalov, if neither Pochitskaya nor Kovalev argue that none of the apartments did not came out on the 12th?
13) Witness Pochitskaya in the Supreme Court under oath testified that no one was leaving the Cartier 12th. Why she is not involved for perjury, if officials have repeatedly stated that the apartment computed Konovalov, when he walked into the store. Or officials lied?
14) From the testimony of Pochitskoy that Konovalov go buy more booze in the morning of the 11th of April, before the attack, and after his return did not go anywhere until the arrest. Maybe Task Force
calculated it to attack and led all the time? Then it turns out that investigators somehow knew it even before the attack, for some reason, watching him and did not prevent the attack.
15) What's the name of the glorious policeman, who calculated up to the terrorists and brought them home from the store? Where can I meet him and shake his hand - because without it, this thing would not have been disclosed. It is necessary to give an award, but instead there are rumors that it does not exist.
16) Which shop Konovalov came to on April 12? Its name, where it is located? What Konovalov bought there? Which time? Name of saleswoman? Why it was decided that Konovalov lives somewhere near Frunze metro station - he could simply get to Frunze’s on a subway? Since most people do so in Minsk.
17) How did the investigation team undertook to sketch Konovalov, if the video, according to the experts of the FSB, a portrait likeness and Konovalov himself could not be established?
100 PERCENT ALIBI TO KONOVALOV
17) Due to Konovalov’s, there is 100 percent alibi! According to the testimony Pochitskoy he returned home on April 11, around 18:00, and the explosion was just a few minutes before. He could not be able to be present on the site of the explosion, as in 2-3 minutes would be unable to get from the station October’s up to the Frunze’s and then to the apartment!
NO TRACES OF EXPLOSIVES, DUST, SMOKE, SOOT AND FUMES
18) Immediately after the arrest Konovalov and Kovalev were stripped naked, their bodies took swabs and samples. In a study directed clothes, shoes, hair fragments, subungual content, washes his face and nasal passages. On the findings of criminologists, Konovalov, and Kovalev were pure as infants: no any organic Compounds related to explosives were found. It is quite possible that Kovalev was not possible to get dirty by such evidence. But Konovalov, apparently, was saturated with hazardous chemicals. According to one of the victims, the blast hit him in the back when he was nearly a third of the tunnel. We can assume that Konovalov was much closer to the epicenter of the explosion. In this case, it is absolutely unclear how he managed to avoid traces of explosives, driven blast wave through the tunnel toward the station Kupalovskaya. How is this possible?
19) My son has not reached the transition from Kupala’s to October’s when the explosion meters before reaching the 30-40 October. The blast had torn out of the ear headphones from your mobile phone. In passing it was all in the dust as in a fog. At the top he shake off the dust. As Konovalov could stay clean, he stood at the exit of the transition?
20) Why there is no any video with the departure of Konovalov's intestine after the explosion?
21) According to the testimony Pochitskoy Konovalov did not take a shower when he came home on 11th. Why, then, it does not show traces of the explosion?
DUE TO PROSECUTION’S MAIN EVIDENCE - RECORDINGS
22) Why did not provided an opportunity to examine the original recording lawyers?
23) Why did the lawyer was not allowed to view the videos in the courtroom with his comments?
25) Why there is absent any video camera on the opposite to the entrance to the station October (closest to the explosion). It hangs over the escalator in the middle; with it would be seen as that exploded, which immediately would answer a lot of questions? And it would be better to see how and where terrorist puts his bag.
26) In STV there was a video from the second vapor explosion. This means that the video from all cameras before and after the explosion there. Well, where else?
27) In this new video very clearly shows what a dust cloud immediately after the explosion, covered with all the. Exactly the same cloud of dust filled the tunnel between October’s and Kupala’s. And now look at the output frames from the Kupala’s at 17:58. Is it look like these people have just experienced a terrible explosion? Nobody has any dust, no hurry to go anywhere. The is impression that people in the frame do not even suspect any of the explosion. Compare these pictures with the shots taken at other exits from the subway.
28) Why is seized with a video camera only three stations - Kupala, October, and Frunze? Although it was impossible to know in advance that there is such Konovalov, and that he was settled in the area of Frunze.
29) How do you explain the fact that the sign on the bag of Konovalov in a closer examination of records appears and disappears?
30) Examination of one of the videotapes revealed signs of inter-frame editing. That is, in fact, fake evidence. Will there be conducted an internal investigation, and who carried out the purpose what for this fraud?
31) Mr. Fedortsov refused to view the video from Tonelli, arguing that there are some controversial moments. Please tell us about what did you mean by that?
32) The events in the metro on a review to the public was presented the film (as you call it themselves). In one scene, the film shows a suspect climbing the ladder in the company of several people (up to 10 people). In another episode the suspect goes to the escalator in the company of the same people. You said that there is nothing surprising in it. What are all these people stopped in the tunnel to meet their friends. A suspect once did the dirty deed, could catch up with them already in the escalator. The first question: why then all these people did not stop in the video from the tunnel? The second question: why are all these people were not stained, if the entire tunnel as shown in video was shrouded in smoke?
33) Why there is no video of the alleged terrorist facing to the cameras? We see it almost always from the back.
34) How and why the video ended up in public access before the court?
35) Why does Horonenko is absent in the film, though he, according to his statement in court, appeared on the balcony for 10-12 minutes and remained there until the explosion?
36) Why does a man with a bag on the subway video looks bigger than Konovalov on other subsequent videos?
37) Where disappeared the bench from the subway, Mr. Stuk? Evaporated?
38) Who are the experts of the FSB to give baseline data about the alleged metal basement of the benches? And how this fact is consistent with the fact that the bases are concrete ones?
39) Why all the benches at the station are gone in the subway station October immediately after the explosion and just before the arrival of the president into the place of accident?
40) Why bench does not appear in court as evidence neither expertise on it?
41) There were committed two crimes on October metro station. The first - the explosion of a bomb. Second - the theft of benches. Both crimes are related. If the motive for the first discrepancy, then the second motive is very simple. That's the one who detonated a bomb in the bench, and there is a motive to steal it - in order to sweep traces. For seven and a half months of the issue the question of the bench was heard more than one hundred times, anywhere, but not in the court. There is no answer to it until now. Moreover, everyone knows about the theft of the benches, but prosecutors did not even think of this fact as a criminal case. Or theft is no longer a criminal act? There is a logical question, who benefits not to initiate investigation into the theft of the subway benches, the more it is material evidence. The answer is also simple. It is beneficial to the person who stole the bench and as a consequence, the one who detonated a bomb in the subway. The one who will be able to answer the question who stole the bench – that will answer the question who detonated a bomb in the subway.
42) When did began conducting investigations the subway? Prior to the arrival or after arrival of Lukashenko? When investigators were allowed to start their job? Has anyone spent any action before the arrival of investigators, security service and the president in particular?
DUE TO KOVALEV’S
43) Why there were necessary witnesses to Konovalov as Kovalev, Pochitskaya and the other girl? Why he was in Minsk during the 3 days under the risk to be identified and arrested? Why could not he come to Minsk in the morning and then in the evening of that day to go to Vitebsk, thus hiding the mystery of his visit to Minsk?
44) During the judicial investigation and after the speech, the public prosecutor I did not get any idea why therefore Kovalev is charged in COMPLICITY? As far as I remember from the course of the criminal law, for participation, you must have CONJUNCTION of intent, the existence of which I have not heard in the courtroom.
45) What is the basis of irrefutable evidence that you asked for the death penalty to Kovalev?
46) The minimum sanction for the article Terrorism - 8 years. Kovalev did not build explosives neither blew it. What is your ask for his death penalty is the based on? Kovalev can not be considered an accomplice if there is no proof of single intents to Konovalov’s to blow up the subway. What is the single intent they had? You accuse Kovalev in complicity to crime only on the proposition that he possibly knew about the intention, helped to carry the bag, bought a newspaper with addresses for rentable apartments and gave to the use his own phone? But if Kovalev did not know about the contents of the bag, it is that he would not help to convey, would not buy a newspaper, would not give his phone? But if Kovalev was absent at all, is it that Konovalov alone did not carry a bag and took an apartment? What is the base to accuse Kovalev to misprision that he knew about the plans of Konovalov? If a witness Pochitskaya testified that she did not heard a conversation between them on this subject, Konovalov at the preliminary investigation gave some contradicting evidence; Kovalev refused to on his earlier words said in the court, and said that he did not know anything?
47) Mr. Stuk! The real part of Kovalev’s in the bloody events on April 11 was expressed in the three-day drunk in the company of Konovalov’s and Pochitskaya. In the very act of terrorism he was not involved, and in the preparation he was not engaged. Even if he knew something – there is no any evidence. However, you asked for his conviction with confidence. Not associated it with your own bloodlust that during the investigation, he blurted out that he knows about the REAL CAUSES of Konovalov's arrival in Minsk? For example, if he could not blurt out the investigators that Konovalov was appointed a meeting with someone on April 11 at 17:00?
48) Why do all the fingerprints were taken in the beginning, but those of Konovalov’s got into the base just after the attack?
49) Why Konovalov’s fingerprint was not taken even in the army?
50) Why did the prosecution insists on the version that Konovalov made a final decision to go to Minsk only after his fingerprints were taken? At the same time, following the testimony of Pochitskaya and the information from the telephone company is clear that Konovalov made a call to Kovalev in the morning at 9:21 am (fingerprints lifted only around 11:00), i.e. he took the decision in advance. At the same time at 9:21, he still could not know that an hour later his fingerprints will be taken and could not to report it to Kovalev, as contended by the prosecution process.
51) Why is the episode of the official who allegedly shot the negligence is not a fingerprint to Konovalov, was isolated in a separate proceeding, and was held behind closed doors? What there may be proprietary information?
52) Where are the remnants of the terrorist bag - one of the major clues? Why a consequence is decided that the bag exploded, maybe something else? Has an expertise done of the particles of explosive residue on the bag and in place of the explosion?
53) There is no clear information in the case materials due to what the jars were in the bag of Konovalov. Were Konolovalov did take it from, what it was for, what it’s size, shape. The information in the file is contradictory. If it's 6-liter jars, it is not known, they would be able to fit into a bag or not, if they could, then how then the bag would look like. Mr. Stuk, what would you answer to this? And why these issues were not clarified during the preliminary investigation?
QUESTIONS DUE TO THE EARLIER EPISODES (2008, 2005).
54) Why did any evidence that the citizen Konovalov, July 3, 2008 was in Minsk was not presented during the trial?
55) Was established the landlord of the apartment in Zaslavskaya street (the episode in 2008) and why he/she did not questioned in the court?
56) Konovalov was being searched after the explosion in an apartment in Vitebsk, but his involvement with it has not been established. What are the new evidences, discovered after 5-6 years (!) that can prove the guilty of Konovalov’s?
57) I want to ask you, how to explain the lack of response of prosecution service dog Diamond during the demining unexploded explosive device in July 3, 2008 by the monument? That same device the fingerprints of Konovalov’s were found on. As a result of examination of the 2-liter package Sadochka along with acid of acetone there was found more than 200 grams of TNT. The official who worked along with Diamond in the court gave a clear indication - his dog has been prepared under the program of industrial explosives. TNT in the program is a basic element for training. For a service dog - this is elementary. To facilitate your choice of options to answer and as a specialist, who had a relation to the service dog, I will tell you that: a dog Diamond could not be confused due to a lot of people, or working in an open space, tiredness – all that does not fit - dog worked only a few minutes with a box. No aggressive and odorous substances can not knock out the scent of the dog - it has a completely different way (from the human ones) is how the olfactory organs of a dog functions. In the warm evening of summer that is resulted in the spread of odors – there is enough just two or three molecules of matter in one cubic meter of air to be detected by the trained dogs to TNT mine blast Service. So, what’s the matter, Mr. Stuk?
58) At trial, expert from Interior Ministry said that in 2-liter package of juice (unexploded) on July 3, 2008 there were 600 nuts M8 and M10. Weight of one nut M10 GOST 5915-70 (namely, those nuts are used for the assembly of the tractor units) is 10 grams and the weight of a nut M8 of the same performance - 5.5 g The exact relationship of these nuts expert is not named, but the estimated weight of 600 nuts was supposed to be in the range of 4-5 kg. Therefore the explosives and other components of the package would weigh 5-6kg. How could the guys who found the package to take it as 2-liter package of juice, and even to kick by feet. Try it at your leisure to kick 5-6 kg package and feel the difference.
59) What qualifications are of the specialist on explosives from Interior Ministry, who began to crumble by hand 300-gram piece of plasticized Kitty in the night of July 3rd? Why there was no an explosion? Why does not the package exploded when it was many times foot-kicked? Why did not the dog responded to TNT? Why when the package is not found candling primer? Are you sure that in this 2-liter bag was really that what voiced in the court? There were no fingerprints of the people who found the package - could it be to be replaced?
60) At the trial it became clear that while in Vitebsk after the discovery of some unknown whether plaster cast, or a real bomb, a police officer threw out all found components of the device, and poured out the contents of the bottles too. He thinks the bomb was fake, and the liquid in the bottle - water. You said that it was a real bomb. If the prosecution on this charge is found to be proved, the punishment must be incurred to a policeman due to the destruction of evidence? And if did not happen, does this mean that this episode is still not proven?
61) Why the video demonstrated testing explosives near Vitebsk, allegedly done by Konovalov, is drawn on HD format, while Konovalov’s Olympus camera (seized during the search) does not support this format? How could this to be explained?
62) Why do most of the hearings was devoted to some explosions of firecrackers, bottled water and set on fire, it is unclear by whom effected during the period approximately adequate to the case? Are those episodes more important than those of 2008 and 2011?
63) Why did the refusal to testify Konovalov and Kovalev’s rejection from earlier data (data untruthful and provided under the pressure, according to him) was not followed by additional witnesses that could prove the prosecution case in the court?
64) The prosecutor's office and you have to enforce the law. As the prosecutor's office and you personally react to the statement of counsel for the fact that the investigation did the obstacles, in particular: depriving meetings with counsel in private, creating artificial queues for lawyers if they wish to meet with the client. Then it was either explained by the lack of space or no given explanation at all. Or is this not a violation of rights of the defendant? Have you have a special circular which allows a blind eye to it? If not, why did not respond and do not punish people who create arbitrary and violate the rights of a detainee to the protection guaranteed by the
65) Mr. Stuk, what do you think of information appeared on Interfax-West from a source close to the investigation. What is it? The disclosure of the secrets of the investigation and the Prosecutor General's Office is obliged to find that anonymous and evaluate his actions. But even this is not so important, and if we assume that this is true, then why this information was not officially announced during the investigation or in court?
66) What was the reason and on what basis the court turned out to unprecedented pressure by senior officials of the state: a statement by Lukashenko on disclosure of the case and awarding a number of officials prior to the court and its decisions, the statements of senior officials from KGB, the Interior Ministry, prosecutor’s office on disclosure of the case before the court and its decisions?
67) Why is not fulfilled the promise by Lukashenko unto all Belarusians that the process will be open? The comments from officials in different media - that's not enough. After the events of 19/10/2010, the film Iron on Glass was broadcasted on all channels several times, but there were no single direct video report from the courtroom on the most high-profile case in the Republic of Belarus?
68) An anonymous law enforcement officer gave an interview to the Interfax news agency and newspaper Belarus Today and announced the favorite movies of Konovalov: Arlington Road and David Gale. Sounded this information in the criminal case? Not. Do you think it is not strange that a lone terrorist watches movies with the main motive - a charge of the innocent?
69) What was the rush and in the course of the investigation and during the trial? Where are you hurrying?
70) Why did the Court was held therefore that the official prosecution of the guilt of Konovalov’s and Kovalev’s has not convinced anyone?
73) Почему по информации из разных источников во дворах в районе станции метро Октябрьская ещё за пару часов до взрыва было состредоточено много машин скорой помощи? Это было установлено
следствием? Номера этих машин установлены (там везде есть камеры и номера долны быть)? Водители машин допрошены? Кто им отдал приказ туда выехать?
71) Mr. Stuk, we think that you’re aware of the fact that if those guys to be shot tomorrow, those and many other questions will be asked to you to the end of your life?
72) Why was not investigated the fact of appearance of the calling card of the Russian mobile operator? It was found in an apartment rented by Konovalov. How do you or the judge Fedortsov could know without checking it relates to the case or not, unless you yourself put it there?
AMBULANCES CONCENTRATION IN THE HEART OF THE CITY ON THE EVE OF EXPLOSION
73) Why – according to announcements of various sources - many ambulances were located in the yards near the metro station Oktyabrskaya even a couple of hours before the explosion? It was found a consequence? Non of these machines are identified (there is always a camera and the identification number is required)? Why drivers of vehicles were not questioned? Who gave them orders to go there?
taken here http://kazni.net/voprosy_bez_otveta/