Last Witnesses In Zavadsky Case Interrogated 11:08, 30/01/2002
Two last witnesses in the case of the abduction of the cameraman of the Russian TV channel ORT were interrogated in court. It means that the court examination of this episode is finished. The responsibility of the Ihnatovich’s group for this crime was not proved, one of the attorneys present at the proceedings believes.
The names of the witnesses were changed, as Radio Svaboda informs, as it is considered that they are at risk. However their evidence did not establish Ihnatovich’s group responsibility, as some of the participants of the hearings say.
On the example of such witnesses the defense doubts that the secret character of the trial is expedient. Evidence of the witnesses during the investigation and in court differs greatly.
For instance, Mrs. N. allegedly saw red Folks Wagen belonging to Ihnatovich by Zavadsy’s house the day before his abduction. But according the first piece of evidence by this eyewitness, which is written down in the materials of the case, informs about blue Renault. Later the colour turned purple, and only after the third interrogation red Folks Wagen was named. She could not explain such confusion in court.
The other witness allegedly saw Maxim Malik, who fulfilled special command of Ihnatovich, in the yard of the Zavdsky’s house, along with investigation’s assumption. But the attorneys disbelieve that the witness identificated Malik himself, without help of investigators, as the method of identification is imperfect.
And another thing. When all these secret witnesses appeared in court at last, the attorneys asked them if Ihnatovich’s friends menaced them. As it turned out, nobody threatened them, and it was investigator’s idea to make them unnamed. As a result, attorneys made a conclusion that investigation deliberately intimidated some witnesses to classify the hearings as secret and to hide from the public its main objective.
And the main objective of the trial, as one of the attorneys says, is to lay accuse Ihnatovich’s group for the abduction of Zavadsky, to close this loud trial. According to this attorney, Ihnatovich’s blame was not proved, as there was no convincing evidence, and material proofs that where collected with violations of law does not inspire confidence either.
The attorney who voiced this position believes that the investigation of Zavadsky’s abduction should have been started once again. As said by him, the opportunities to unravel the case of Zavadsky were not used entirely.