Wanted: A Crime
When all you hear from politicians is how they’re defending Ukraine from fascists, perverts, migrants, etc, the photographs of assaulted journalists, peaceful protesters put such defence in its right perceptive. It’s undoubtedly more worrying when we hear the Interior Minister or Prosecutor General come out with unconvincing stories about defenders, but even then the pictures do the job well enough.
When we’re talking about serious criminal charges, especially those linked with terrorism, and when the version given by the enforcement bodies is not questioned by the courts, journalists willing to ask questions are urgently needed.
As reported here, the trial of four men accused in connection with the bomb blasts in Dnipropetrovsk on 27 April 2012 is continuing with many questions unanswered. The blasts occurred just 6 weeks before Euro 2012 and at a time when Western attention was firmly on Ukraine for another reason. There was wide media coverage in Ukraine and abroad regarding Yulia Tymoshenko’s assertions of ill-treatment when being transported between hospital and the prison colony where she is serving a sentence widely denounced as politically motivated. Since all attention became focused on the bomb blasts, there were cynical suggestions that the authorities had found the bombs extremely convenient. There were also doubts, at least within Ukraine, when it was announced a week before the beginning of the Euro 2012 Championship that four men had been arrested and that the crime could be considered closed.
Although doubts remain, questions are seldom asked, especially about the two men charged with acting as accomplices. Yet the fact that there is virtually nothing to say is the very reason why questions are simply begging to be asked.
The following questions about the charges against Dmitry Reva of acting as an accomplice have been posted on thein the hope that journalists will take up a case in which the most crucial component has been omitted – a crime.
Dmitry Reva is accused of having gone to the centre of Dnipropetrovsk to “observe the reaction of the police and public to the explosions, and if the need arose pass on information to Sukachev and Fedoryak, so that the latter could coordinate their further actions”.
What information could he have provided that could not be gleaned from the media reports which began immediately after the first explosion?
How was he to determine whether the need had arisen to inform the two alleged terrorists?
How could he pass it to the two alleged terrorists, one of whom he did not know?
What does “so that they could coordinate their further actions mean?” Please give an example of information which could have had impact on their later actions.
Did Reva have any realistic chance of obtaining such information?
The bombs had been planted before Reva went to the centre in order, he says, to pay an outstanding bill (it was paid). Specialists say that there was no way of knowing when they would go off, and the two main defendants are alleged to have planted two bombs each without informing the other as to where. Reva witnessed the bedlam after the two bombs allegedly planted by Viktor Fedoryak whom he did not know.
How could he have passed information to a man the investigators are not even suggesting that he knew?
If, as the specialists suggest, he could have witnessed all the bombs, or none, what was the conceivable aim of such an action?
The exchange of text messages began around an hour after the last bomb, and was begun by Sukachev, a friend from university and one of the two accused of planting the bombs:
Sukachev: “Are you OK? None of our lot hurt?”.
Reva “Yeah, I think so”,
Sukachev “Hades Hell, everything at our end seems to be OK”.
If this is coded information, what in fact were the two telling each other? What were they supposed or able to communicate “if the need arose”
Why, since Sukachev sent several text messages to different friends, are such questions to Reva deemed to conceal criminal intent?
The SBU [Security Service] first posted three identikit pictures, then two weeks later added an identikit picture of a fourth suspect.
At the beginning of June 4 men were arrested and are still in custody one year later.
Which identikit is related to Reva and where was the information obtained to draw it up?
Why has not one of the accused, or any witness given any evidence to link Reva with the crime?
Why, if the crime was committed for financial gain, do we keep hearing, including from the prosecutor, suggests of a political motive?
Why has there been such interest from the investigators and from the prosecution in court in Reva’s work as consultant to an opposition MP?
Why are the two defendants who have partially (Sukachev) and fully (Fedoryak) admitted guilt adamant that neither Reva nor Prosvirnin had anything to do with the crime?
What was Reva’s motive? If financial gain, how was this to be determined since he might not have witnessed a single bomb? If not financial, then why would he do it?
It has been proven that the alleged phone call made during the search of Reva’s flat to Sukachev could not have been made by him since his phones had been taken away. Since this call was the stated reason for remanding Reva in custody, and one of the main charges against him, why, one year on is he still in custody?
These questions have been put in court, but received no answer. It is surely time that they get asked as publicly as possible. There is after all one conclusion from this case which hits you in the eye: absolutely any person in Ukraine could find themselves in Dmitry Reva’s position.