Posted on 01/24/2006 2:51:57 PM PST by struwwelpeter
A sensation in the 'Nord-Ost' case: the victims of the tragedy could for the first time read the attorney general's resolution refusing to bring a criminal complaint
Judge Susina's achievement.
The intriguing part of the sensation, and not there would be no sensation at all, if the machines of government had simply carried out the law. The 'Nord-Ost' victims had no access to the case materials for more than two years. The ice began to crack only on November 11th, 2004, and only as if by accident.
Judge Natalya Susina of the capital's Zamoskvoreche law court, during the course of examining a complaint against the chief investigator of the attorney general's office, Inspector Viktor Kalchuk, and after the attorney general had ignored two court orders to provide materials relevant to the case, finally, on the third try, managed to force the attorney general to obey the law.
Judge Susina's persistence is because of Pavel Finogenov, whose brother Igor was killed at Dubrovka. Pavel is a calm man, but a very thorough one. It was his complaint that was examined by Judge Susina. At first, this request long tormented Ms. Karagodova, the judge of the very same Zamoskvoreche court of law. Representatives of the attorney general came to her sessions, they demonstratively showed her the first and last pages of their resolution, which Pavel had obtained access to, which outlined the attorney general's refusal to bring charges (against the special forces or medics at 'Nord-Ost'). Ms. Karagodova, after holding these two pieces of paper in her hands, was satisfied by the quantity of information provided.
In reply, Pavel obtained a change of judges. Natalya Susina was then assigned the case. Several months of confrontation with the attorney general's office followed, and Mr. Kalchuk finally gave up. On November 12th, Pavel was allowed to read their resolution. But perhaps it would have been better had he not read it. It is an awful fairy tale on why no one is guilty of the loss of his brother, as well as the loss of another 129 persons.
Quotations with commentary.
The beginning of resolution is an analysis of the well-known 'Nord-Ost' videotapes. The contents of two of these were described by our newspaper in great detail. One can clearly see how the people in camouflage were leisurely strolling about the steps of the newly liberated Dubrovka theater, early on the morning on October 26th, 2002. No one was in any hurry. To the side stood ambulances (covering the Dubrovka's entrance), and hostages are tossed down by the entrance like sacks, and no one is rendering any kind of aid, as people in uniforms walk by and examine them, rarely even bending over to look closely.
The official picture is much different:
"... the indicated video materials, due to the distance from the scene to the video operator, do not make possible any specific conclusions concerning the organization of medical assistance... The victims, who were carried in various ways, including on their backs, were placed before the entrance to the building so that medical assistance could be rendered... It is visible that the former hostages immediately upon evacuation were given injections and artificial respiration. No serious obstacles to transport for evacuated the former hostages was observed on the video recording."
One can observe, and it is visible and audible, that some of the people in uniforms are shouting desperately, yelling for the ambulances to drive nearer to the entrance, but vehicles cannot drive up. One cannot understand WHO or WHAT it was that interfered with the vehicles. They are simple unable to drive up and that is all. And for now the hostages are dying on the steps of the building.
The resolution packed is with information pertaining to the attorney general's refusal (to bring charges), and it is both contradictory and strange information which at the end, in the conclusions section, does not become any more clear:
"According to the explanation by the director of the Moscow Center for Emergency Medical Assistance (TsEMP), L.G. Kostomarova, on October 26th at 0530 the TsEMP received information about the assault on Dubrovka... at 0537 it received the order to reserve 100 ambulance vehicles... at 0705 the mass evacuation of the hostages began... at 0815 the evacuation was completed. The ambulance brigades were ready to render assistance independently factor and were so equipped... including with the drug Naloxone, which... was used to render assistance to the victims... Since there was the danger of an explosion, rendering assistance to the victims in the immediate vicinity of the Dubrovka building was impossible, so therefore the use of buses was justified." (Emphasis here and throughout this article by me. - A.P.)
Highlighted here are the two main themes which were subject to investigation. First, what medical preparation did they use to save the victims from the gas, and was this (according to Kostomarova, Nalaxone) effective? In the second place, where did they work to save the victims? I.e. - how soon after poisoning? According to Kostomarova, it was impossible to do this quickly and closely; the threat of an explosion interfered. But did it really interfere in their work? And whose lives were they attempting to preserve? The hostages?
The investigation answers none of these questions. It limits itself to whitewashing the organization of the evacuation. And, of course, the assault. Although in another section the retelling of Ms. Kostomarova's statements contradict what was given above:
"The absence of information about the specific substance used, which the victims were under the influence of, had no significance to the proper rendering of assistance to the victims. There was no need for the participation of military physicians."
Can such a thing be true? Widely and "effectively" the injected Naloxone (a potent antagonist of strong opiate narcotics), but the antidote was of little value. So why then have they written volumes on chemical weapons and chemical toxins? And why in general does our country train military physicians if this "had no significance" and their presence is not required?
An important detail: in the attorney general's resolution there are practically none of the annotations required in such documents, with references to specific case volumes, where the objective proofs or statements of the official experts should be contained (with their titles, first, middle, and last names), who could explain why, for example, they did not require the "participation of military physicians." So, it turns out that this whole manuscript is nothing more than belles-lettres (fiction).
Another quote from the statements of TsEMP member A.P. Nezamayev, a direct participant in the rescue operation. This physician was on duty on the night of October 25-26, 2002, in brigade #1. He immediately let slip certain details which destroyed the smooth explanations of the previous witness, about an 'effective rescue':
"At about 6 in the morning of October 26th, A.P. Seltsovskiy (chairman of the Moscow public health commission. - A.P.) reported that the Dubrovka building had been freed from the terrorists, and what he (Nezamayev. - A.P.) and his attached units must advance on the Dubrovka DK."
It is known that at this moment Nezamayev and his brigades were at Dubrovka, and another unit of ambulances was parked at Proletarskaya metro station, a maximum of five minutes from the scene on empty streets.
Why then why did they begin at 0705, if at 0600 they already had the order to advance?
What was an entire hour of the most precious time spent on?
These questions are ours, yours, mine, and everyone's. But the investigation does not examine these questions. WHO was not carrying out his responsibilities, and why?
Even more mysterious and unevaluated by the investigation is the statement of TsEMP physician E.A. Krugovoi. His brigade was on duty at Melnikov Street, in the immediate vicinity of Dubrovka, from noon, October 25th, onwards:
"At 0537 on October 26th the first shots rang out, at 0550 he (Krugovoi - A.P.) independently sent ambulance brigades... and reconnoitered avenues of approach to the building." These doctors understood that their aid was urgently needed, and that they needed to advance.
But suddenly, another loss of time. The doctors do not receive the order to save victims, they were three minutes from the Dubrovka entrance, but there was still no order. Only at "0702 on Seltsovskiy they advanced to the Dubrovka building, where they arrived at 0705." The testimonies do not add up.
Once again this same hour of lost time. And this is obvious to anyone who knows how to read. Columns of doctors were ready to risk themselves, but someone impeded them. WHO on that day took upon himself to play God for an entire hour, to decide whether hostages should live or die?
In the statements of Doctor Krugovoi there is an additional, key phrase, which should hook any inspector would leap on and attempt to unwind its secret:
"Clinically the victims appeared to have been poisoned by an opioid preparation."
Naturally, the question arises: by what? It is exactly from this starting phrase that a study must follow (coroners' reports, analyses from the dead and those who survived, etc.). WHICH opioids did they use to poison the hostages? And, naturally, WHO gave the order?
For two years the investigative group has hidden the results of its work from the families of those killed, and from society. To many it seems that the answers lay in the classified documents of the criminal case (and that is therefore why they are classified). It is this secret which the relatives of those who were killed at Dubrovka have struggled to find out, and which Pavel Finogenov finally managed to beat from the judicial system.
And so what? The secret proved to be a fake - a substitute thesis. A secret, but it is not about that. The main concern is the concealment of the truth. Why, for example, is that key phrase of Doctor Krugovoi not the starting point of an investigation? In fact, it simply is dissolved, and lost in the flow of other words which prove the officially proclaimed heroism of the rescuers?
No one found out what the true composition of the gas was, and no one established who ordered its use and hid the antidote from the physicians.
From the explanations given to the investigative brigade by the chief anesthesiologist for the city of Moscow, N.A. Evdokimov (the chief anesthesiologist, of course, is the very same person who should have been the first to know what precisely he needed to use to resuscitate his patients, and if he was not informed of this, he should have demanded information about the composition of the toxic substance):
"The fact that a gas was used in the course of the hostage rescue, he (Evdokimov. - A.P.) first learned from the media. At about 6 in the morning the media learned of the assault... At 0730, he arrived at the Sklifosovski Research Institute to begin setting up additional brigades to work at the scene of terror act."
Officially, the evacuation would end in 45 minutes - at 0815. What did he need to do at 730? And WHO coordinated all the mass casualties requiring instantaneous resuscitation prior to the arrival of the Moscow chief anesthesiologist at 'Sklif'?
WHO? And once again the same picture: the investigative brigade just walks on by the testimony, which should have required them to pose additional questions and receive answers.
More from the explanations of Mr. Evdokimov to the investigators:
"It was extremely difficult to forecast the possible action any substances on the hostages, and the subsequent antidote therapy. Naloxone is the specific antidote to opiates, and was widely used from the very beginning of rendering medical assistance to the hostages... However, the application of Naloxone did not have any vital importance in this situation, and no essentially positive effect from its application was observed."
Let us sum it all up: according to Kostomarova, Naloxone saved people. According to Evdokimov, it not essential. Who is telling the truth?
From the statements of V.A. Afanasev, chief physician at Hospital #7:
"Approximately 30 minutes after beginning to receive injured hostages (he means, at about 8 in the morning, meaning after it was already known, as Evdokimov asserts, that Naloxone did not help. - A.P.) the duty officer at the public health commission rang them up and reported that they should use Naloxone."
But why inject something that would not work? Indeed, what was needed was something that could save the victims. From the testimony of the manager of the resuscitation unit at Hospital #7, U.Y. Romanovsky, whose department received 27 of the hostages that morning:
"Approximately 50 - 60 minutes after they arrived, someone from the hospital administration said that Naloxone should be used. (!!! - A.P.). We had at that moment about 40-50 ampoules of Naloxone in the department at that moment, which we used. Approximately 40 minutes later, a large quantity of Naloxone arrived at the hospital. Fourteen persons passed away during a half-hour period."
Did Naloxone help, or not? And did these 14 die because they could not wait for Naloxone? Or because it was used? Or they did inject it 'just in case'? Randomly? Maybe it would help?
The conclusions, found in a report on the organization of the medical assistance and signed by A.P. Seltsovskiy, chief of the Moscow public health commission, and included as well in the case materials, completely contradict Dr. Evdokimov. The chief physicians and ambulance doctors who were questioned:
“Injections of Naloxone at the beginning was justified, since it is an antagonist of narcotic analgesics. A positive effect from the treatment was observed in the clinical condition of an overwhelming majority of the victims."
The case materials, thus, are completely vague about the discrepancy in the question as to what exactly did the physicians need to do on October 26th. This same vagueness at the moment of the attorney general's refusal to initiate a criminal complaint. That refusal occurred due to the obscurity of the truth. It is important to understand that this indistinctness was intentionally introduced into the investigation. Earlier, we only assumed this, but now, after November 12th, we this for a fact.
But let us return to now let us return to the question of military physicians. Were they required early on the morning of October 26th in order to carry out an effective rescue? Objectively? Those who knew the specific composition of the poisonous mixture before the assault began? Were they at Dubrovka or inside, where the ambulance physicians were not permitted?
The attorney general's resolution, to which we now have access, is undoubtedly valuable in its details. A scattering of officially recorded facts, which did not initiate curiosity in the investigators. But the story does not end tomorrow, and, that means there is still hope for another look at the case and the official explanations.
A quote:
"According to an explanation by A.U. Alabova (whose job title was not indicated, and in all likelihood is an officer from the special forces. - A.P.), at approximately 0630 or 0600. (indiscriminately - A.P.) he entered the Dubrovka building. He saw soldiers from special forces carrying them (the hostages - A.P.) from the hall to the foyer... they laid them on the floor, and gave them a primary inspection... He personally saw doctors illuminating the victims' eyes with pocket lights, loosening their lower clothing and making injections into the region of the buttocks."
What doctors? Officially there were no doctors in hall at 0630; they had no orders to advanced, only later would they begin to collect their patients from the steps of the Dubrovka building.
Then who was "illuminating the victims' eyes with pocket lights"? Military chemical specialists who were continuing their experiment and hastily injecting the victims who were still alive with antidotes, known only to them?
It is possible that it was thus. It is not ruled out that some of the hostages survived because of the antidotes given to them in the foyer. But again - where is an intelligible, clear, honest investigation? Which community did the attorney general and investigators hold to be especially important?
There is another theme. If the investigators so many times have to prove that the ambulance doctors were only BY THE BUILDING, but later testimony appears that some 'doctors' were performing treating INSIDE THE BUILDING, then at least where is an answer to the question: on what official basis were these unidentified persons performing resuscitation, and handling the bodies? And if they were handling the bodies, then why were they not performing artificial respiration? Or chest compressions? Just a poke in the victims' buttocks, no intravenous heart medications? Did they even have any heart medications? Was it news to them that comatose patients require these? So were they doctors, or were they chemical specialists? Who needed an entire hour to hide traces of the poison they used?
The investigation's conclusion, running ahead to page 12 of the attorney general's resolution, states simply: the "absence of military medical specialists... played no role in the rendering of assistance to the victims."
And what happened later? In the hospitals?
After straightening out the "successful evacuation," the inspectors/authors of fairy tales came to a description of what went on in the hospitals where the hostages were taken. And here, the same thing. A complete nonconformity of facts is recorded. On the one hand, no one died in the buses; everyone got "timely medical aid" on the steps of the Dubrovka building. But, from the testimony of chief physician of Hospital #13, L.S. Aronov:
"Arriving simultaneously at the hospital were 47 or 48 eight emergency vehicles, and 5 buses. They dropped of 356 victims at the hospital, 35 of which were in a state of biological and clinical death. More than 20 of these 35 were in such a state that resuscitative measures were pointless. The rest were in a state of clinical death, and attempts at resuscitation were unsuccessful."
This is on page 7 of the resolution. But if we return to page 4, then we see:
"Ambulance doctors O.V. Belyakov, M.U. Sakharenkov, and V.V. Fedotov explained that accompanied the buses full of victims to GKB hospitals #1, 7, and 13, respectively, and there were no deaths of the victims en route."
Who is lying? Certainly, revealing a lie is not the point of an investigation. The main thing is to find out where did death occur, and correspondingly, from what causes? But the investigation also passes by this with its head proudly raised. The conclusion of the investigation:
"As was established in the course of our verification, the buses were traveled with ambulance brigade physicians on board (3 doctors to 5 buses. - A.P.). There were no cases of victims dying on the buses."
So, where did the corpses that were brought into the hospital resuscitation departments come from?
Once again, from the testimony of Hospital #13's head physician, Dr. Aronov:
"There was no official information brought to the hospital as to what caused the hostages' conditions."
But why? The investigators should have first posed this question to those who led the special operation. Is this not elementary logic? But the testimony of the doctor is also lacking the attention of the investigators: why did the person, who was supposed to know, not report how these people were poisoned?
The investigation did not even move in this direction. even did not move. At all. The proofs of the investigation's lack of interest in searching for the truth are scattered throughout all the pages of their resolution - by very members of the investigative brigade, who we repeatedly heard are the best inspectors of the country, and were tasked with finding out all the facts, since it is "a matter of our nation's honor" and so forth and so on.
The conclusions of the resolution:
"On October 26th, 2002, while conducting a special operation to release the hostages, the latter underwent the action of a gas based on derivatives of Fentanyl, which has a sleep-inducing effect. As a result, 129 of the hostages passed away. The deaths of 114 of the victims were certified on the scene."
So it turns out that, 129 minus 114, only 15 died in hospitals or en route. But what is to be made of the official tallies of hospital chief physicians and resuscitators? Did the overwhelming majority of the hostages who died pass away in the hall or on the steps of the Dubrovka building while waiting for timely, qualified, medical assistance? And all of this goes against the resolution's central thesis, which the investigators repeated over and over again, and frequently, as if they are sure that those reading the document are idiots: that the "name of the substance which was used during the assault, had no value." Another interpretation: the "composition of substance."
Let me explain: if the doctors did not know what it was and how to treat it, it was because nothing was reported to them. And the one who was obligated report this and did not, he remains unidentified by the investigation, to say nothing of the fact that he must be punished.
In summary:
"To refuse to initiate a criminal complaint in connection with the failure... of officials who are responsible for the organization of rendering medical assistance, is a crime," signed R.B. Ibragimov, chief of the directorate for investigating organized crime, Moscow attorney general's office.
On every page, the second signature that certifies the first signature is that of V.I. Kalchuk, major crimes investigator and head of the investigative brigade assigned to criminal case #229133.
P.S. An important detail: the resolution is dated December 31st, 2002, just two months after the tragedy. Relatives of those killed at 'Nord-Ost' received official access on November 12th, 2004. Two years passed while they kept this a state secret, a secret consisting of the investigators’ terrifying incompetence and indifference, and the fact that the best inspectors of our country are those who carry out political orders.
"You know, tragedies can occur in any country," said Pavel Finogenov in farewell. "No one is insured against them. The main thing is what the nation makes of it. What lessons do they extract from the awful truth about what went on? Don’t you agree?"
(to be continued)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.