CRIMEA: Police where are you

CRIMEA: Sergey Mokrushin, journalist | 06/02/2014

Colleagues, friends and relatives are interested about an investigation of the suspicious group attack under a responsive police noninterfering. I’ll give a short answer – nothing is happening. Now, all the details.

Everyone knows about those events which took place on the 28th of January in the Seminar park in Simferopol. For those, who don’t know here is a short description. A group of suspicious people in public place broke a photo camera of a journalist who has decided to take a picture of them. The police officers deign to interfere only after the camera had already been broken. Luckily only the equipment had been damaged. Officers denied to detain assailants and hurried to take the journalist away from the occurrence location saying that they can’t detain anybody without a written application of the victim!

The name of the officer, who get my application in the car with civil identification number I’ve managed to know only at the Central District Police Departmentwith a lawyer. And there is some very interesting moment, which will be clarified at the end of this article: a public order in Simferopol was protected by the official of the Criminal Investigation Department – Lieutenant Aleksandr Antipenko.

That day I’ve been in the Central District Police Departmenttill the 20.00. Apart from Yuliya Titkova - the investigator, I’ve managed to talk with a chief of the department – Sergey Starosvitskiy, who has tried to find out if I had a professional journalist education and how were my labor relations with the editorial office  executed. I suppose that information was absolutely necessary for identification of assailants and their punishment. I had also a talk with a chief of the Police and public order – Valeriy Gritsay, who’ve promised to make a maximum effort and do their best.

Those promises were like this: on the 30th of January I was called to an investigative experiment. It was very good demonstration of the procedure. One of the inquest witnesses confessed that she was working a probation in that District Police Department. The investigative experiment was screened by mobile phones, because our offer to provide a professional video camera had been rejected. When one phone was discharged, the other was used to record. I was asked to sign the protocol later in the district department. I agreed, because I didn’t want to make girls freeze outside writing the protocol.

At the end, I got a call from the investigator who’d told me that they couldn’t open the file with the investigative experiment’s record. She offered me to repeat the experiment when the weather would become warmer. Since that moment I can’t contact with Yuliya Titkova.

After a week and a half of investigation I have a very bad cold and no investigation. Those persons, who were talking to police officers a second before the attack – are still not identified. There were no massage about discharging someone from office.

According to the statement which was made by the chairman of the Public Council of the Сity ​​Police Department – Igor Kozakov, there is an assumption that the Police officers, who were at the occurrence location, will “promote” next version of that event:

 

1.    They didn’t see the conflict

 

2.    The journalist wasn’t identified, he didn’t introduce himself when they asked

I want to upset those who are interested in freezing this case of criminal violation. Apart from the photo camera I had a dictaphone in my pocket, which I’ve forgotten to switch off after the meeting under the Crimean Verhovnaya Rada building. A piece of the record is below. https://soundcloud.com/mokrushin_sergey/iuyxvmyriyhv 

Here you can clearly hear how I tell that I’m a journalist and call the Police before the attack. I didn’t really manage to take out my certificate because the stroke at my camera had come immediately after the question of one of assailants: “Why do you keep it in your pocket?” According to those facts I’ll try to list counterarguments:

 

1.    Police officers saw what had happened. Photos and videos have their faces. They were looking at the objective. My voice when I was calling the Police is recorded on the dictaphone.

 

2.   The dictaphone record captured that I’ve told that I was a journalist before the attack. Audio and video records have also captured how assailants asked me why I was keeping my journalist certificate at the pocket before the stroke. It means that there was no identification problem.

The chief of the Police public order told me about the image of the Police and inadmissibility of such incidents. I agree. But there should be no investigations imitation, attempts to freeze the undesirable case. Thanks to our readers we know more about assailants than on official Police. We know names of some people and the nickname of their “sotnik” – Pancha. According to our data, one of the assailants – Stas G. - was even a candidate to the Simferopol City Council. I have no doubts that the judoist Roman S., who was in that crowd too, could also give some information.

I would like to give my additional facts and information to the Police, repeat the investigative experiment and come to the confrontation with those officers, as the chief of the investigation told me to do. But I can’t contact with the investigation group, and it doesn’t contact with me.

 http://investigator.org.ua/blogs/116985/

Источник: 

pravo-crym.net