Tomina E.V. protects my wife Irina Galitsina. Our both public prosecutor and the substitute of the attorney of the Central District of Volgograd Chernyshev Sergey Vasilyevich knowing that my wife is in her sixth month of pregnancy and she is innocent in spite of it he demanded 3 years as a punishment in prison for her.
Your Honor, colleagues, sometimes I can not understand why we are working at the same process for hours or for months, if by the end we have got the same bill of particulars. It seams that we did not work about judicial investigation but did other inexpedient things. For the beginning you should read the appropriate assets, and from the comparison you should conclude that if child porno is forbidden in any case, then «adult» porno is forbidden only if some statement is violated. But there is no such a statement in our law system which could be damaged in this case. There is no violation of law because there is no such a law. Considering the lack of materials of the Geneva Convention I would not fatigue the Court by showing that this document has nothing which can be used in accusation of the defendants. Invocation that the defendants admitted their fault and that they agreed of closing the case is an illegal statement because the only constitution of the state which can prove the guilt is the conviction of the Court. The public prosecutor refers to the statements of Sergeev and to the conclusion of the integrated study of the CD which was carried out before bringing the action to the Court (according to the investigation and search operations) 28.08.06. And besides I remind you: Sergeev explained that based on the investigation and search operations he demanded on the «HTTP://WWW.GALITSIN-NEWS.COM». He wanted to buy several DVD of erotic content but they did not answer him. He did not get answer from any address. But he got the answer from some alien «», and exactly that person sold him these DVD. I solicit to mark that the demand of Sergeev was opened, and every person who are in the internet could read it. There is no any connection between “Yurok” and the site of Galitsin, on which according to the words of the prosecutor there was the porno content. He got this DVD from the unknown person and this person supposedly said that he had downloaded this video from the site of Galitsin, but remit me this information are taken at third from the unknown source, and it would be unseemly to base our case on unknown information. Besides, during the examination of the removed later 400 DVD there is no accurate information that the images from the DVD coincide with the video which we got during the control purchase form Ukrainsky. Besides these two DVD — are the only proved fact of marketing presumably files of porno content, presumably with the participation of under aged people, as we found out this fact has no connection to the defendants. The accusation does not know weather these video files were put on the internet through what Galitsin carried out the marketing of his production. The accusation does no at all what production Galitsin was selling through the internet because the site marked in the bill of particulars is not inaccessible from the territory of The Russian Federation. The conclusion of the complex scientific investigation is an illegal fact according to the articles 89, 74, 75, 80, 164, 168 of the Procedural Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This fact reckons among two DVD which sold Ukrainsky and we do not know who produced these DVD and from whom were taken.
 The conclusion of the examination 28.02.07, which accepted the undistributed production situated on the computers of the defendants as porno content, but this examination did not prove the participation of the under aged models in this content. The conclusion is doubtful because that according to the statement from 10.10.06 there was a lot of examinations: it means that the material which was investigated according to unknown criteria was divided into several unknown groups, but this is against the Federal law of The Russian Federation «About activity of experts». More over that the ensemble of this conclusion with the statements of the expert Chernaya N.A. gives us the ground for such conclusions: The marks of porno are not objective and directly perceived: their determination depends on historical and cultural aspects, on psyche and psychology of the perceiving subject (recipient), on the situation and on the other changeable conditions. From the formal point of view «Danaya» of Rembrandt, pointing her pubis with the hand, or Praksitel with erect penis – are clear porno. If I am not mistaken in Amsterdam there is a sculptor of «tinkling boy», — this sculptor can not be treated as a scientific aid of the urination of children, this sculptor situated on the populous square and people do not treat it as porno. The expert Kislyakov explained that the artwork can not be treated as porno even if it contains all the characters of porno. In this case how can we base on the conclusion of the examination in which there were not any photo or video specialists? Because both photo and video are separate art. So the conclusion about the lack of children in the shootings is one-valued, and the conclusion about containing porno materials is – conjectural and questionable. More over I underline that the accusation did not give facts about putting on the internet the investigated video-photo materials. This content maybe could be put on the internet maybe it was put on the internet and maybe it was produced for putting in the internet – but the judgment can not be based on the assumptions. In the contrary in the folder of the computerе «models in action», it means that these models took part in shootings for distributing through the internet there was not under aged models. There was neither Bazhenova nor Bokhiy Practically all of interrogated persons, — a lot of models (Isaeva, Fedorova), and all without exceptions defendants claimed that they treated their production as soft or hard erotic and they signed their pictures on the internet and also advertised erotic (for example the expertise of computer 46 and ahead till the moment when during the primary investigation it was told that it is porno. And the investigation had to carry out the scientific investigation.) Kislyakov explained that the conclusion of the amount of signs of porno is made with the use of highly qualified: sexologist, psychiatrist, psychologist and with help of the specialist of the art which is supposed as porno, and besides the Court checks the qualification and operational experience of the specialists. And besides any conclusion is only conjectural, because it will be the common conclusion: without considering individual reactions and the features of perception. But even such a positive-conjectural conclusion divided the production into porno, erotic and just plots, and we can not say that the two last subjects are random including into the whole amount of porno. Of course if in 100 of coitus there in only one play with kitten, we suppose that the aim was coitus, but if the plots divide into half-and-half – erotic and porno, in this case the erotic according to experts exceeds the frames of genre. And the crimes according to the articles 242 and 242.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are deliberate and they can exist only with dolus directus. Dolus directus, gentlemen means that the person knows that he distributes porno and this he wants to distribute exactly porno, and he also knows that he distributes porno with under aged people, and he wants exactly to distribute porno with under aged people. If the person thinks that his production is erotic and his delusion is scattered with the use of a huge variety of scientists and with the use of dozen of volumes of criminal case, — dolus directus (direct intention) is excepted, and we can speak only about closing such a site in the order of the state legal procedure. And this conclusion about lack of the evidences of dolus directus in the actions of defendants refers to the both of compounds and to the all involved persons in this criminal case. So, all the evidences of guilt of Galisina about part 2 article № 242.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which has got the investigation , — are statements of the witness Bazhenova, and during the investigation of such evidences we shou
ld factor into the flagrant and hostile relation of the witness to my client, and this relation is not masked at all: — two women were in intimate relations with a man, both got money from him, both were the models for his photo and video materials, — the field of jealousy is very big. If we factor into the unfounded character of statements: Bazhenova speaks about pressure on here, but she can not give any fact of this action which could be done by Galitsin or by Galitsina. I want to remind to the Court that all the shootings lasted for a very big period of time but they were making in a discontinuous manner, came once every girl could stop coming for good at any moment and some girls did like this. For the first time the girls came from the street singly nobody forced them to do it: they were not brought in handcuffs. Material relation is nonsense: one thing if the person is dying from starvation and he is attracted by candy and the other thing if woman have not got enough money for diamonds, a lot of people can live without diamonds. All what is said refers to Bazhenova. Besides though Bazhenova says that Galitsina make shooting of the video where she recognized herself, this is disproved by that case that Galitsina was also as a model in this video. How could she take camera in her hands if she took part in this video herself? And it seems that nobody saw her with the camera except Bazhenova. About video: they were checked with the use of expertise, and if part of it coincides with those which were accepted as porno, in any case the accusation did not show it to the Court. Presumably the video is porno, and the video of participation of Bazhenova can partly coincide and maybe it is not: we had not found it out by the end of the judicial investigation. Bazhenova confirmed that she was shooting with the alien certificate in her hands, with the certificate of adult person and her statement that she was asked to do it is not confirmed. In the contrary, the statement that the Galitsins found out the real age of the model only during their trip to Moscow at the end of January 2006 is confirmed that since that moment they have stopped their communication with Bazhenova. So in this way there is no legal evidence of guilt of my client and because of this I ask you to discharge her completely.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *