A short video about our trial. “Kirovles-2.”
It should have been interesting, in theory: for two days they questioned the star witness, Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opalev, the former head of Kirovles, whose testimony the entire case is built on.
It is on his word that the verdict contains all those claims that “Navalny was the leader of a criminal group,” and so on.
According to the prosecution, Opalev was not just a witness but also an accomplice. He gave a confession to that effect. He made a deal with the investigators, was tried under a special fast-track procedure, and received a suspended sentence. The trial was held in secret: no one knew about it, and no one was there.
During “Kirovles-1,” Opalev mostly stood there in silence, covering his face with his hand. To questions he replied, “I don’t remember,” and “if that’s what the transcript says, then I must have said it.”
This time, the approach had not changed much. “I don’t remember,” and “the judge and prosecutor know better—ask them.”
Only this time he also brought a medical certificate saying he was ill. So he asked that his testimony not be filmed (the rest of the proceedings could be filmed). The judge agreed. Apparently, he also did not want you to see this disgrace.
Here is a brief summary of what happened before filming was banned.
I very much regret that the camera did not capture the part where we asked how Opalev signed a 45 million ruble contract with a company owned by his son and his accountant.
A criminal case was opened against him over that (based on my complaint), but he was later acquitted—after he gave false testimony against me and Ofitserov.
Still, all of this is described in the live text updates from the courtroom.
People